From a6c60bbe5de9a090c8da30d5edbd27582f6b19e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oliver Scherer Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:08:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Clarify a statement in UB test --- src/test/ui/consts/const-eval/double_check2.rs | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/test/ui/consts/const-eval/double_check2.rs b/src/test/ui/consts/const-eval/double_check2.rs index e1f3e5bb27a..b89db0b97d9 100644 --- a/src/test/ui/consts/const-eval/double_check2.rs +++ b/src/test/ui/consts/const-eval/double_check2.rs @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ // check-pass // This test exhibits undefined behavior, but it is impossible to prevent generally during -// const eval, even if possible to prevent in the cases here. The reason it's impossible in general +// const eval, even if it could be prevented in the cases here if we added expensive and +// complex checks in rustc. +// The reason it's impossible in general // is that we run into query cycles even *without* UB, just because we're checking for UB. // We do not detect it if you create references to statics // in ways that are UB.