-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.6k
Additional tce tests #144650
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Additional tce tests #144650
Conversation
…nd the LLVM codegen backend.
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
cdfbab1
to
06db3a5
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
06db3a5
to
0dba4bb
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
You're gonna need the kind of //@normalize-stderr attributes as other ICE tests have, or just add the test to tests/crashes |
0dba4bb
to
e0738ad
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
e0738ad
to
e0b4595
Compare
// Indexing taken from | ||
// https://github.com/phi-go/rfcs/blob/guaranteed-tco/text%2F0000-explicit-tail-calls.md#tail-call-elimination | ||
// should probably come back to after some decision on verbiage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you mean by "decision on verbiage"?.. What is this test even testing?
you can make the test pass (hopefully) by just replacing &dyn Fn(usize)
with fn(usize)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Decision on verbiage" was meant to indicate more discussion on examples given in that part of the RFC. From what I could see, nobody had tested that particular example of tail-calling something from a function table, and I was curious as to whether it'd work as desired, as it's kind of an operation. Didn't look too close in that regard though, admittedly.
I can indicate that better with a new comment, thanks for pointing that out.
Test also does pass with the described change. Push coming in a moment. However, it does feel a little silly to include now, so if input indicates I should remove it, I will.
r? @oli-obk
Adds known-bug tests for LLVM emissions regarding indirect operands for TCE. Also includes a test,
indexer.rs
, referring to function_table behavior described by the RFC.Depends on #144232
Closes #144293