alexcrichton commented on Issue #2028:
There's an instance of #1886 in
tests/all/main.rs
, mind removing those#[cfg]
? I think this can close #1886 as well afterwards?In any case, very nice!
fitzgen commented on Issue #2028:
There's a few of them now, I think all of these
cfg
s can be removed:tests/all/func.rs:126:#[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64")] tests/all/func.rs:449:#[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64")] tests/all/func.rs:484:#[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64")] tests/all/main.rs:23:#[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64")] tests/all/main.rs:25:#[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64")] tests/all/main.rs:29:#[cfg(target_arch = "x86_64")]
fitzgen commented on Issue #2028:
Also, thanks! :tada: :tada: :tada:
cfallin commented on Issue #2028:
Argh -- false positive: removing the directives in
tests/all/main.rs
, I see failures ofgc::smoke_test_gc
andgc::gc_during_gc_from_many_table_gets
. I wonder if the tests enabled inbuild.rs
are only testing opcodes and the gc tests exercise the stackwalking more?I'll push the commit in any case so the failures are visible here on the CI run.
fitzgen commented on Issue #2028:
It is possible that we don't dynamically trigger any GC during the whole reference types proposal spec tests, and so they would only be testing the code generation.
cfallin commented on Issue #2028:
Closing this now, as #2410 enables GC/reftypes on all backends!
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC