Update raw_eq documentation and tests#1091
Merged
adpaco-aws merged 6 commits intomodel-checking:mainfrom Apr 23, 2022
Merged
Conversation
tedinski
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2022
| let uninit_arr: [u8; 8] = unsafe { MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init() }; | ||
|
|
||
| let arr_are_eq = unsafe { raw_eq(&zeroed_arr, &uninit_arr) }; | ||
| assert!(!arr_are_eq); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if this second test is necessary?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's expressing that raw_eq is also true in at least one trace, thus complementing the other test case.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description of changes:
First, I'm not clear on why I wrote that layout comparison was a requirement.
raw_eqis implemented asmemcmpand the documentation does not mention layout anywhere: https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/intrinsics/fn.raw_eq.htmlWhat it does mention is that uninitialized memory in any of the arguments is undefined behavior.
This PR updates the notes on Rust feature support to mention uninitialized memory, which we had to do anyways because of #920. It also updates the comment on
raw_eqand adds two new tests for checking the behavior with uninitialized data.I think there is nothing else to be done with
raw_equntil we can poison memory (see #920).Resolved issues:
Resolves #347
Part of #727
Testing:
How is this change tested? Adds two tests
Is this a refactor change? No
Checklist
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses.