small cleanups in rustc_codegen_llvm by malezjaa · Pull Request #165622 · rust-lang/rust

malezjaa · 2026-11-08T01:05:13Z

small clippy cleanups

rustbot · 2026-11-08T01:05:16Z

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/debuginfo

cc @Walnut356

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/builder/autodiff.rs

cc @ZuseZ4

Some changes occurred in coverage instrumentation.

cc @Zalathar

rustbot · 2026-11-08T01:05:19Z

r? @dingxiangfei2009

rustbot has assigned @dingxiangfei2009.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
compiler expanded to 79 candidates
Random selection from 23 candidates

Zalathar · 2026-11-08T03:08:24Z

This is a large number of individual changes mixed together (despite the modest line count), some of which are more contentious than others, which makes reviewing this a bit of a slog.

I'd suggest separating the different kinds of changes into separate commits, to make it easier to check that each kind of change looks good.

Zalathar · 2026-11-08T03:12:12Z

            let value_words = [value as u64, (value >> 64) as u64];
            let size_in_bits = size.bits();
            // LLVM computes `NumWords = (SizeInBits + 63) / 64`.
-            assert!((size_in_bits + 63) / 64 <= value_words.len() as u64);


This assertion is deliberately written to match the LLVM computation, and should not be changed, since the change makes it harder to verify that both sides are performing the same computation.

View changes since the review

Zalathar · 2026-11-08T03:14:47Z

+                    feature_err(
+                        self.sess(),
+                        feature,
+                        span,
+                        "C-variadic function definitions on this target are unstable",
+                    )
+                    .emit();


This seems worse than the status quo, as the call is now spread across several lines without an increase in clarity. I would at least retain msg as a local variable to make the call more compact.

View changes since the review

Zalathar · 2026-11-08T03:22:39Z

+        // Set up the small-data optimization limit for architectures that use
+        // an LLVM argument to control this.
+        if let (Some(threshold), SmallDataThresholdSupport::LlvmArg(arg)) = (


If we're bothering to clean up this match, then IMO it should become an if-let chain rather than an odd if-let on a tuple.

View changes since the review

Zalathar · 2026-11-08T03:27:01Z

+    pub(crate) fn set_struct_body(&self, ty: &'ll Type, els: &[&'ll Type]) {
+        unsafe { llvm::LLVMStructSetBody(ty, els.as_ptr(), els.len() as c_uint, FALSE) }
    }
+
+    pub(crate) fn set_packed_struct_body(&self, ty: &'ll Type, els: &[&'ll Type]) {
+        unsafe { llvm::LLVMStructSetBody(ty, els.as_ptr(), els.len() as c_uint, TRUE) }
+    }
+


This is the sort of change that should be presented in its own commit at least, not bundled in with dozens of trivial changes.

View changes since the review

rustbot · 2026-11-08T12:21:27Z

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

Some changes occurred in GUI tests.

cc @GuillaumeGomez

This PR changes how LLVM is built. Consider updating src/bootstrap/download-ci-llvm-stamp.

Some changes occurred in HTML/CSS/JS.

cc @GuillaumeGomez, @lolbinarycat

Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest

cc @jieyouxu

Some changes occurred in src/tools/cargo

cc @weihanglo

malezjaa · 2026-11-08T12:21:57Z

oh no, i messed up a rebase. let me fix it

malezjaa · 2026-11-08T12:40:18Z

Sorry to everyone who got pinged 😅

I should've split these up into commit from the start.
Also I cleaned up remaining needless borrows. (all of them are in one commit)

…_body

rustbot · 2026-11-12T16:01:41Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

rustbot assigned dingxiangfei2009 Nov 8, 2026