Fix Box allocator drop elaboration #143672
Open
+550
−27
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
|
|
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
|
r? compiler since wesleywiser is off rotation |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New version of #131146.
Clearing Box's drop flag after running its destructor can cause it to skip dropping its allocator, so just don't. Its cleared by the drop ladder code afterwards already.
Unlike the last PR this also handles other types with destructors properly, in the event that we can have open drops on them in the future (by partial initialization or DerefMove or something).
Finally, I also added tests for the interaction with async drop here but I discovered #143658, so one of the tests has a
knownbugannotation. Not sure if it should be in this PR at all though.Fixes #131082
r? wesleywiser - prev. reviewer