interpret: fix mir::UnOp layout computation#157290
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
oli-obk
approved these changes
Jun 3, 2026
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JonathanBrouwer
added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2026
interpret: fix mir::UnOp layout computation "The operand always has the same type as the result" was correct when I wrote the comment, but more `UnOp`s have been added since, making this incorrect now. This hasn't caused issues yet because apparently the local variable layout cache means we hardly ever (never?) actually use the "known" layout. r? @oli-obk
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2026
Rollup of 12 pull requests Successful merges: - #157085 (powerpc: warn against incorrect values for ABI-relevant target features) - #157170 (Use `impl` restrictions in `std`, `core`) - #157217 ([tiny] remove unecessary `.into()` calls) - #157262 (rustdoc: IXCRE: Preserve sizedness bounds on type params belonging to the parent item) - #157379 (Some more simple per-owner resolver changes) - #157381 (librustdoc: fix CSS border issue to support Firefox high contrast mode) - #155512 (interpreter: improve comments and error message in mir_assign_valid_types) - #157254 (Correct description of panic.rs) - #157290 (interpret: fix mir::UnOp layout computation) - #157332 (Rewrite target checking for `#[sanitize]`) - #157351 (Avoid leaking the query-job collection warning into the panic query stack) - #157389 (Add @clarfonthey to libs review rotation)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2026
Rollup merge of #157290 - RalfJung:unop-layout, r=oli-obk interpret: fix mir::UnOp layout computation "The operand always has the same type as the result" was correct when I wrote the comment, but more `UnOp`s have been added since, making this incorrect now. This hasn't caused issues yet because apparently the local variable layout cache means we hardly ever (never?) actually use the "known" layout. r? @oli-obk
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
3 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.
"The operand always has the same type as the result" was correct when I wrote the comment, but more
UnOps have been added since, making this incorrect now. This hasn't caused issues yet because apparently the local variable layout cache means we hardly ever (never?) actually use the "known" layout.r? @oli-obk