erikdesjardins
erikdesjardins
This is #26494 / #77434, reverted by #85265 / #94570
For `[T; N]`, this is because we don't add lifetime markers to by-move arguments passed indirectly: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/vjd78n38a. I believe we should be adding a `lifetime.end` marker at the end of...
Yeah, that would likely work, or equivalently `std::intrinsics::assume(x.len()
> This is doing something like `x.len() * size_of::() == 0`, to decide whether or not to call `__rust_dealloc`. This check shouldn't be necessary, because we just checked `x.len() ==...
For the case of `[T; N]`, from #98121 it seems that emitting `lifetime.end` is not viable. A more viable option would be to add an attribute to upstream LLVM, like...
Related: #1887
https://www.reddit.com/r/Enhancement/comments/47p26b/link_specific_accounts_to_specific_subreddits/
This probably needs #4342 for the implementation to be not be hacky/fragile w.r.t timing
This also needs #4342 to not be fragile / difficult to implement w.r.t. timing
https://www.reddit.com/r/Enhancement/comments/3ksoe8/feature_request_custom_filter_date_ranges/