Skip to content

Conversation

Enselic
Copy link
Member

@Enselic Enselic commented Oct 15, 2025

In 9253e12 a bunch of gdbr-check (for rust-gdb) directives and gdbg-check (for plain gdb) directives were added. But in two places the author accidentally wrote gdbt-check instead (t is next to r on the keyboard). This commit fixes that typo.

#129218 later renamed gdbr-check to just gdb-check which is why we rename to gdb-check directly.

The test still passes locally for me after the change, but fails if I change the gdb-check checks to check for some other string, so the check seems to still perform its intended function.

Note that we need to add a std::hint::black_box() to avoid

$4 = <optimized out> 

prints on at least aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1.

After this there are no more instances of the string gdbt in the code base:

$ git grep gdbt
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 15, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 15, 2025

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@Enselic Enselic force-pushed the gdbt-check-typo branch 3 times, most recently from 133bfad to f88ff0b Compare October 16, 2025 03:55

fn non_immediate_args(a: BigStruct, b: BigStruct) {
zzz(); // #break
std::hint::black_box(|| { let _ = (a, b); }); // Avoid `<optimized out>` prints
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some reasonable questions might be: "Why is this needed? Why does aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1 optimize away the args even with -Copt-level=0?"

I'll look into that to make sure we're not papering over a real bug.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Turns out this was a known bug on aarch64. See #128973. I added a cfg with a FIXME, so this is good to go know.

@rustbot ready

@Enselic Enselic added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 17, 2025
@Enselic Enselic force-pushed the gdbt-check-typo branch 2 times, most recently from d7f871a to 9cfef2e Compare October 17, 2025 13:55
…n.rs` In 9253e12 a bunch of `gdbr-check` (for `rust-gdb`) and `gdbg-check` (for plain `gdb`) was added. But in two places the author accidentally wrote `gdbt-check` instead. This commit fixes this typo.
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Oct 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

4 participants