interpret/validity: improve some comments
This commit is contained in:
parent
f1a8854f9b
commit
6c6cccdd9b
@ -853,7 +853,8 @@ fn visit_value(&mut self, op: &OpTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>) -> InterpResult<'tcx>
|
|||||||
self.visit_scalar(scalar, scalar_layout)?;
|
self.visit_scalar(scalar, scalar_layout)?;
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
Abi::ScalarPair(a_layout, b_layout) => {
|
Abi::ScalarPair(a_layout, b_layout) => {
|
||||||
// We would validate these things as we descend into the fields,
|
// There is no `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start` for pairs, so
|
||||||
|
// we would validate these things as we descend into the fields,
|
||||||
// but that can miss bugs in layout computation. Layout computation
|
// but that can miss bugs in layout computation. Layout computation
|
||||||
// is subtle due to enums having ScalarPair layout, where one field
|
// is subtle due to enums having ScalarPair layout, where one field
|
||||||
// is the discriminant.
|
// is the discriminant.
|
||||||
@ -867,7 +868,8 @@ fn visit_value(&mut self, op: &OpTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>) -> InterpResult<'tcx>
|
|||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
Abi::Vector { .. } => {
|
Abi::Vector { .. } => {
|
||||||
// No checks here, we assume layout computation gets this right.
|
// No checks here, we assume layout computation gets this right.
|
||||||
// (This is harder to check since Miri does not represent these as `Immediate`.)
|
// (This is harder to check since Miri does not represent these as `Immediate`. We
|
||||||
|
// also cannot use field projections since this might be a newtype around a vector.)
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
Abi::Aggregate { .. } => {
|
Abi::Aggregate { .. } => {
|
||||||
// Nothing to do.
|
// Nothing to do.
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user