-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Fix outdated comment of fn_can_unwind
#113213
Conversation
r? @lcnr (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@@ -1101,12 +1101,11 @@ where | |||
/// | |||
/// This takes two primary parameters: |
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.
this is now also wrong? 😀 should this mention fn_can_unwind
as that was probably used to replace codegen_fn_attr_flags
?
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.
Sorry I am not sure which line you are talking about.
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.
woops, meant fn_def_id
.
/// This takes two primary parameters:
Either say "this takes one primary parameter"/remove this line entirely, or alternatively, also mention fn_def_id
and mention "This is only applicable for Rust-defined functions, and generally isn't needed except for small optimizations where we try to say a function which otherwise might look like it could unwind doesn't actually unwind (such as for intrinsics and such)."
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.
I did already mentioned fn_def_id though?
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.
I might have still been a bit too tired? 😅 yikes
sorry, you're absolutely right
@bors r+ rollup |
⌛ Testing commit 39c3ef7 with merge 0eaf7bbd70ce922ca1a45ae09a2848cbf2fcef46... |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
Change in comment causes SIGSEGV? That's concerning |
llvm is currently broken for MIPS is currently broken, see rust-lang/compiler-team#648 |
@bors try |
woops @bors retry |
⌛ Trying commit 39c3ef7 with merge 2d0118f771ae7029de68fc443aaaa7f1116bafc4... |
@bors r+ rollup |
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
@bors treeclosed=100 the tree is busted (because of the try-build and r+ racing) |
@bors treeclosed=100 |
holy shit @bors ping |
Finished benchmarking commit (8b98c37): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action neededBenchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 653.659s -> 654.452s (0.12%) |
Does this need to be reopened? I happened to get this merge commit as my local |
Yeah, maybe as a separate PR in case bors is confused about the state of this PR.. |
Reopened as #113467 |
Fix comment of `fn_can_unwind` Reopen of rust-lang#113213
Fix comment of `fn_can_unwind` Reopen of rust-lang#113213
The first part is outdated since #96473, and the second part is outdated since #97235