interpret: rename StackPopCleanup #143528
Merged
+56
−56
Conversation
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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The name seems good to me. It is a curious thing and it's either clear to you what it means or you should be reading its docs anyway @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #143130 (doc(std): clarify `NonZero<T>` usage limitation in doc comment) - #143415 (Get rid of build-powerpc64le-toolchain.sh) - #143464 (Make tests/ui/abi/debug.rs cross-compile) - #143482 (Fix short linker error output) - #143524 (Move `stable_mir` back to its own crate) - #143528 (interpret: rename StackPopCleanup) - #143551 (Dont resolve instance of root in `mir_callgraph_cyclic`) - #143558 (mbe: Refactors and function extractions in `compile_declarative_macro`) - #143563 (std: fix typo in `std::path`) - #143564 (compiler: Deduplicate `must_emit_unwind_tables()` comments) - #143577 (Disable download-rustc for library profile) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Rollup merge of #143528 - RalfJung:stack-pop-cleanup, r=oli-obk interpret: rename StackPopCleanup The name `StackPopCleanup` stopped making sense a long time ago IMO -- in the common case, it has nothing to do with "cleanup", and everything with where the program should jump next. If we didn't have unwinding this would be just the return block, but given that we do have unwinding I figured maybe "continuation" would be a good name. This comes up in [continuation-passing style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation-passing_style) and refers to where the program will *continue* when a function is done. So from a PL perspective it is the most fitting term I think -- but it may be too jargony. r? `@oli-obk` what do you think?
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to devnexen/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#143130 (doc(std): clarify `NonZero<T>` usage limitation in doc comment) - rust-lang/rust#143415 (Get rid of build-powerpc64le-toolchain.sh) - rust-lang/rust#143464 (Make tests/ui/abi/debug.rs cross-compile) - rust-lang/rust#143482 (Fix short linker error output) - rust-lang/rust#143524 (Move `stable_mir` back to its own crate) - rust-lang/rust#143528 (interpret: rename StackPopCleanup) - rust-lang/rust#143551 (Dont resolve instance of root in `mir_callgraph_cyclic`) - rust-lang/rust#143558 (mbe: Refactors and function extractions in `compile_declarative_macro`) - rust-lang/rust#143563 (std: fix typo in `std::path`) - rust-lang/rust#143564 (compiler: Deduplicate `must_emit_unwind_tables()` comments) - rust-lang/rust#143577 (Disable download-rustc for library profile) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
The name
StackPopCleanupstopped making sense a long time ago IMO -- in the common case, it has nothing to do with "cleanup", and everything with where the program should jump next. If we didn't have unwinding this would be just the return block, but given that we do have unwinding I figured maybe "continuation" would be a good name. This comes up in continuation-passing style and refers to where the program will continue when a function is done. So from a PL perspective it is the most fitting term I think -- but it may be too jargony.r? @oli-obk what do you think?