Fix two const-eval issues related to i128 negation #38992
Merged
Conversation
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
|
r? @eddyb |
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
First issue here was the fact that we’d only allow negating integers in i64 range in case the integer was not infered yes. While this is not the direct cause of the issue, its still good to fix it. The real issue here is the code handling specifically the `min_value` literals. While I128_OVERFLOW has the expected value (0x8000_..._0000), match using this value as a pattern is handled incorrectly by the stage1 compiler (it seems to be handled correctly, by the stage2 compiler). So what we do here is extract this pattern into an explicit `==` until the next snapshot. Fixes rust-lang#38987
nagisa
force-pushed
the
i128-minvallit
branch
from
ec79a6d to
e97f104
Compare
|
Fixed. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit e97f104 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2017
Fix two const-eval issues related to i128 negation First issue here was the fact that we’d only allow negating integers in i64 range in case the integer was not infered yes. While this is not the direct cause of the issue, its still good to fix it. The real issue here is the code handling specifically the `min_value` literals. While I128_OVERFLOW has the expected value (0x8000_..._0000), match using this value as a pattern is handled incorrectly by the stage1 compiler (it seems to be handled correctly, by the stage2 compiler). So what we do here is extract this pattern into an explicit `==` until the next snapshot. Fixes #38987
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2017
…ss than 2 Broken by rust-lang#38992.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2017
Fix stage 1 tests broken because i128 doesn't work in stage 1 Broken by #38992.
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.
First issue here was the fact that we’d only allow negating integers in i64 range in case the
integer was not infered yes. While this is not the direct cause of the issue, its still good to fix
it.
The real issue here is the code handling specifically the
min_valueliterals. While I128_OVERFLOWhas the expected value (0x8000_..._0000), match using this value as a pattern is handled
incorrectly by the stage1 compiler (it seems to be handled correctly, by the stage2 compiler). So
what we do here is extract this pattern into an explicit
==until the next snapshot.Fixes #38987