extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory #100897
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri |
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
|
r? @lcnr (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-not-to-mutable
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cee0888
to
f352284
Compare
lcnr
reviewed
Aug 23, 2022
| ); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| _ => {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it make sense to make this match exhaustive?
r=me regardless of whether you do that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah fair that probably makes sense.
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-not-to-mutable
branch
from
f352284
to
cb4cd73
Compare
|
@bors r=lcnr |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 25, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 25, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 26, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
|
@bors rollup |
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 28, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 28, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 28, 2022
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2022
…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#94890 (Support parsing IP addresses from a byte string) - rust-lang#96334 (socket `set_mark` addition.) - rust-lang#99027 (Replace `Body::basic_blocks()` with field access) - rust-lang#100437 (Improve const mismatch `FulfillmentError`) - rust-lang#100843 (Migrate part of rustc_infer to session diagnostic) - rust-lang#100897 (extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory) - rust-lang#100959 (translations: rename warn_ to warning) - rust-lang#101111 (Use the declaration's SourceInfo for FnEntry retags, not the outermost) - rust-lang#101116 ([rustdoc] Remove Attrs type alias) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.