bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Activity

use a loop rather than try_fold

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Ralf Jung 2022-07-11 13:42:08 -04:00
parent ab225ade1e
commit 04b3cd9f7c
2 changed files with 21 additions and 23 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

19
compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/operand.rs
View file

@ -524,19 +524,18 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
/// avoid allocations.
pub fn eval_place_to_op(
&self,
place: mir::Place<'tcx>,
mir_place: mir::Place<'tcx>,
layout: Option<TyAndLayout<'tcx>>,
) -> InterpResult<'tcx, OpTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>> {
// Do not use the layout passed in as argument if the base we are looking at
// here is not the entire place.
let layout = if place.projection.is_empty() { layout } else { None };
let layout = if mir_place.projection.is_empty() { layout } else { None };
let base_op = self.local_to_op(self.frame(), place.local, layout)?;
let op = place
.projection
.iter()
.try_fold(base_op, |op, elem| self.operand_projection(&op, elem))?;
let mut op = self.local_to_op(self.frame(), mir_place.local, layout)?;
// Using `try_fold` turned out to be bad for performance, hence the loop.
for elem in mir_place.projection.iter() {
op = self.operand_projection(&op, elem)?
}
trace!("eval_place_to_op: got {:?}", *op);
// Sanity-check the type we ended up with.
@ -545,12 +544,12 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
*self.tcx,
self.param_env,
self.layout_of(self.subst_from_current_frame_and_normalize_erasing_regions(
place.ty(&self.frame().body.local_decls, *self.tcx).ty
mir_place.ty(&self.frame().body.local_decls, *self.tcx).ty
)?)?,
op.layout,
),
"eval_place of a MIR place with type {:?} produced an interpreter operand with type {:?}",
place.ty(&self.frame().body.local_decls, *self.tcx).ty,
mir_place.ty(&self.frame().body.local_decls, *self.tcx).ty,
op.layout.ty,
);
Ok(op)