Put checks that detect UB under their own flag below debug_assertions by saethli...
source link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123411
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
Collaborator
|
The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift cc @bjorn3 Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
Outdated
Comment on lines
17 to 21
// CHECK-NEXT: start: |
||
// CHECK-NEXT: icmp ult |
||
// CHECK-NEXT: tail call void @llvm.assume |
||
// CHECK-NEXT: getelementptr inbounds |
||
// CHECK-NEXT: ret ptr |
Member
Author
@scottmcm Can you offer some advice on the right way to write this test? I'm not sure how exact I should be matching against the IR.
Maybe use revisions to put tests for the presence and the absence in the same file? For inspiration, maybe look at this file, where it checks the different codegen for OPT0 and OPT3 -- you could do the same kind of thing for UB-checks on and off:
And if the NOUBCHECK-NOT negative check is right next to the YESUBCHECK positive check for the same thing, it's way more likely that the negative test is actually doing something meaningful.
Maybe you can also check things like that the assume optimizes out when the ub-check is on, because it ends up unneeded as the dominating branch checks the same thing?
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK