rustc: don't use union layouts for tagged union enums. - #47007
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Stop the fire: @bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 97228f5 has been approved by |
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 27, 2017
rustc: don't use union layouts for tagged union enums. Fixes #46897, fixes #43517 (AFAICT from the testcases). This PR doesn't add any testcases, we should try to at least get perf ones (cc @Mark-Simulacrum). I couldn't find an example in those issues where the choice of LLVM array vs struct (with N identical fields) for padding filler types is still needed, *on top of* this change, to prevent excessive LLVM sinking. r? @arielb1
kennytm
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Closed
2 tasks
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
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #46897, fixes #43517 (AFAICT from the testcases).
This PR doesn't add any testcases, we should try to at least get perf ones (cc @Mark-Simulacrum).
I couldn't find an example in those issues where the choice of LLVM array vs struct (with N identical fields) for padding filler types is still needed, on top of this change, to prevent excessive LLVM sinking.
r? @arielb1