Do not ICE when calling incorrectly defined transmute intrinsic#123526
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Apr 6, 2024
Merged
Do not ICE when calling incorrectly defined transmute intrinsic#123526bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
transmute intrinsic#123526bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
compiler-errors
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2024
Contributor
|
@bors r+ rollup |
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#123294 (Require LLVM_CONFIG to be set in rustc_llvm/build.rs) - rust-lang#123467 (MSVC targets should use COFF as their archive format) - rust-lang#123498 (explaining `DefKind::Field`) - rust-lang#123519 (Improve cfg and check-cfg configuration) - rust-lang#123525 (CFI: Don't rewrite ty::Dynamic directly) - rust-lang#123526 (Do not ICE when calling incorrectly defined `transmute` intrinsic) - rust-lang#123528 (Hide async_gen_internals from standard library documentation) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#123526 - estebank:issue-123442, r=compiler-errors Do not ICE when calling incorrectly defined `transmute` intrinsic Fix rust-lang#123442
Member
|
why was this change done? it is a fairly simple change but also completely unnecessary, anyone defining transmute with the wrong params deserves am ICE |
Contributor
Author
|
@Nilstrieb I know that as a policy we won't go out of our way to avoid ICEs caused by incorrect intrinsics, but I do believe that when handling that is a small enough amount of code, we should. I have three reasons for that position:
I think all three points (or at least the first two) can be handled in two ways: either we handle the invalid state with |
fmease
added a commit
to fmease/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2024
…tebank Don't even parse an intrinsic unless the feature gate is enabled Don't return true in `tcx.is_intrinsic` if the function is defined locally and `#![feature(intrinsics)]` is not enabled. This is a slightly more general fix than rust-lang#123526, since rust-lang#123587 shows that we have simplifying assumptions about intrinsics elsewhere in the compiler. This will make the code ICE again if the user **enables** `#[feature(intrinsics)]`, but I kind of feel like if we want to fix that, we should make the `INTERNAL_FEATURES` lint `Deny` again. Perhaps we could do that on non-nightly compilers. Or we should just stop compilation altogether if they have `#![feature]` enabled on a non-nightly compiler. As for the UX of *real* cases of hitting these ICEs, I believe pretty strongly that if a compiler/stdlib dev is modifying internal intrinsics (intentionally, like when making a change to rustc) we have no guarantee to make the ICE better looking for them. Honestly, *not* spitting out a stack trace is probably a disservice to the people who hit those ICEs in that case. r? `@Nilstrieb` `@estebank`
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#123603 - compiler-errors:no-intrinsic, r=estebank Don't even parse an intrinsic unless the feature gate is enabled Don't return true in `tcx.is_intrinsic` if the function is defined locally and `#![feature(intrinsics)]` is not enabled. This is a slightly more general fix than rust-lang#123526, since rust-lang#123587 shows that we have simplifying assumptions about intrinsics elsewhere in the compiler. This will make the code ICE again if the user **enables** `#[feature(intrinsics)]`, but I kind of feel like if we want to fix that, we should make the `INTERNAL_FEATURES` lint `Deny` again. Perhaps we could do that on non-nightly compilers. Or we should just stop compilation altogether if they have `#![feature]` enabled on a non-nightly compiler. As for the UX of *real* cases of hitting these ICEs, I believe pretty strongly that if a compiler/stdlib dev is modifying internal intrinsics (intentionally, like when making a change to rustc) we have no guarantee to make the ICE better looking for them. Honestly, *not* spitting out a stack trace is probably a disservice to the people who hit those ICEs in that case. r? `@Nilstrieb` `@estebank`
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix #123442