[rustc_ty_utils] Add the LLVM noalias parameter attribute to drop_in_place in certain cases.#103614
Closed
pcwalton wants to merge 5 commits into
Closed
[rustc_ty_utils] Add the LLVM noalias parameter attribute to drop_in_place in certain cases.#103614pcwalton wants to merge 5 commits into
noalias parameter attribute to drop_in_place in certain cases.#103614pcwalton wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
LLVM can make use of the
noaliasparameter attribute on the parameter todrop_in_placein areas like argument promotion. Because the Rust compiler fully controls the code fordrop_in_place, it can soundly deduce parameter attributes on it. In the case of a value that has a programmer-defined Drop implementation, we know that the first thingdrop_in_placewill do is pass a pointer to the object toDrop::drop.Drop::droptakes&mut, so it must be guaranteed that there are no pointers to the object upon entering that function. Therefore, it should be safe to marknoaliasthere.With this patch, we mark
noaliasonly when the type is a value with a programmer-defined Drop implementation. This is possibly overly conservative, but I thought that proceeding cautiously was best in this instance.