Add note about reverting a workaround in the future #84063
Conversation
The root cause was fixed upstream in LLVM main. This adds a reminder to revert the workaround once the LLVM rustc depends on is new enough. Since I'm not sure how such optimizations get routed to LLVM releases, I used the conservative assumption that it will only show up with LLVM 13.
|
r? @dtolnay (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Why is it important that we remove this workaround? Does the workaround produce worse code than what the reverted code with updated LLVM would? |
|
"Important" isn't the word I'd use. It's just written in a slightly non-obvious way that triggered even the author of the workaround to add an explanatory comment. Plus, a future reader might try to figure out what's up with the "optimizes worse" part of the comment when it has been long fixed. My goal is to inform them that there's a known root cause fix and when it will be safe to simplify the code again. |
|
Cool. @bors r+ rollup=always |
|
📌 Commit 9aa11a1 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
The root cause was fixed upstream in LLVM main. This adds a reminder to revert the workaround once the LLVM rustc depends on is new enough. Since I'm not sure how such optimizations get routed to LLVM releases, I used the conservative assumption that it will only show up with LLVM 13.