Added codegen tests for different forms of `Option::or` #150564

rwardd · 2026-01-01T11:49:21Z

Adds tests to check the output of the different ways of writing Option::or

rustbot · 2026-01-01T11:49:26Z

Mark-Simulacrum is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

rustbot · 2026-01-01T11:49:27Z

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs

scottmcm · 2026-01-01T17:38:17Z

r? scottmcm

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs

scottmcm

Thanks for picking up this work!

Looking mostly good; I left some comments. The DAG one I do feel reasonably strongly about. The others think about and feel free to push back if you think otherwise.

View changes since this review

rustbot · 2026-01-01T18:03:01Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

…8` and `[u8; 1]` cases Co-authored-by: scottmcm <[email protected]>

…t tests with `NonZero<u8>` input

rwardd · 2026-01-02T02:32:51Z

The DAG one I do feel reasonably strongly about. The o

Thank you very much for the valuable feedback - I agree with all the comments, and have attempted to address and implement all of it. I have two further questions:

If/when this PR gets approved, are you happy if the same style is followed to build out the Option::and and Result::{and, or} tests? E.g., have multiple functions for the different forms of the operation, and test them against the three types (u8, [u8; 1], NonZero<u8>) as was done in this PR?
Is there value in writing tests for larger types (e.g. u64, [u64; 1] ...)? I am cognisant of keeping tests minimal as stated in the Best Practices section, and don't want to inflate the tests if they are superfluous.

Thanks again!

rwardd · 2026-01-02T02:33:37Z

@rustbot ready

scottmcm · 2026-01-02T16:35:48Z

Yes, this same style makes sense to me.
Unless there's a particular reason to think they'll do something different, I'd prefer fewer tests overall. LLVM support arbitrary-sized integer types (even i40 and such), which means it's usually pretty reliable at not doing something different just because it's a wider integer type. If you play around and notice a difference that's interesting, then sure, but hopefully the "what's the BackendRepr variant of the option" coverage is getting the interesting differences and thus different widths (or floats, or ...) aren't interesting enough to bother testing separately. (Unless, of course, someone finds an issue about them.)

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs

scottmcm · 2026-01-02T16:49:00Z

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs

+pub fn or_match_nz_u8(opta: Option<NonZero<u8>>, optb: Option<NonZero<u8>>) -> Option<NonZero<u8>> {
+    // CHECK: start:
+    // CHECK-NEXT: [[NOT_A:%.*]] = icmp eq i8 %0, 0
+    // CHECK-NEXT: select i1 [[NOT_A]], i8 %optb, i8 %0
+    // ret i8


Thanks for adding these! Nice to see the argument names and such too, since it's short so that's not a big deal.

But that ret on its own isn't actually checking anything. How about, instead,

Suggested change

pub fn or_match_nz_u8(opta: Option<NonZero<u8>>, optb: Option<NonZero<u8>>) -> Option<NonZero<u8>> {

// CHECK: start:

// CHECK-NEXT: [[NOT_A:%.*]] = icmp eq i8 %0, 0

// CHECK-NEXT: select i1 [[NOT_A]], i8 %optb, i8 %0

// ret i8

pub fn or_match_nz_u8(opta: Option<NonZero<u8>>, optb: Option<NonZero<u8>>) -> Option<NonZero<u8>> {

// CHECK: start:

// CHECK: [[NOT_A:%.+]] = icmp eq i8 %0, 0

// CHECK: [[R:%.+]] = select i1 [[NOT_A]], i8 %optb, i8 %0

// CHECK: ret i8 [[R]]

Since naming the values means that we're not concerned about other things showing up in the middle, and thus don't need to use the -NEXT that the ones looking at just the instructions do.

(And of course ditto the others below)

scottmcm

Another round of suggestions 🙃

The most important one is about the un-CHECKed ret comments, but ponder the others as well.

Thanks for making the previous updates! Hopefully these are the last things I'll think of.

View changes since this review

…ormation in `CHECK-` directives Co-authored-by: scottmcm <[email protected]>

…ith directive contents

rwardd · 2026-01-03T02:58:18Z

@rustbot ready

Thank you very much again for feedback (and patience!). I've implemented all the suggestions (specifically ensuring all ret comments are actually CHECKed), and gone ahead and extended some of the existing CHECKs to be more explicit with argument naming and return values.

scottmcm · 2026-01-03T16:04:58Z

Thanks, this looks great! Welcome to the never-as-simple-as-you'd-wish world of codegen tests :P

@bors r+ rollup=iffy (new codegen tests are always a different-target risk)

bors · 2026-01-03T16:05:00Z

📌 Commit a2fcb0d has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

…tmcm Added codegen tests for different forms of `Option::or` Adds tests to check the output of the different ways of writing `Option::or` Fixes #124533

bors · 2026-01-03T18:27:57Z

⌛ Testing commit a2fcb0d with merge 860bfa3...

rust-log-analyzer · 2026-01-03T19:29:27Z

The job armhf-gnu failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

failures:

---- [ui] tests/ui/reachable/issue-948.rs stdout ----

error: error pattern 'beep boop' not found!
status: exit status: 101
command: RUSTC="/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustc" RUST_TEST_THREADS="4" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools-bin/remote-test-client" "run" "0" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/reachable/issue-948/a"
--- stdout -------------------------------
uploaded "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/reachable/issue-948/a", waiting for result
------------------------------------------

bors · 2026-01-03T19:30:03Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

scottmcm · 2026-01-03T20:45:58Z

@bors retry (no way that adding one codegen test broke a ui test)

bors · 2026-01-03T22:47:38Z

⌛ Testing commit a2fcb0d with merge f57b9e6...

bors · 2026-01-04T02:04:09Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing f57b9e6 to main...

github-actions · 2026-01-04T02:07:06Z

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 7ecabfa (parent) -> f57b9e6 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 4 test diffs

Stage 1

[codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Stage 2

[codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Additionally, 2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard f57b9e6f565a1847e83a63f3e90faa3870536c1f --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

dist-riscv64-linux: 6053.6s -> 4776.2s (-21.1%)
i686-msvc-1: 10761.3s -> 9662.4s (-10.2%)
x86_64-msvc-1: 9440.8s -> 8514.6s (-9.8%)
x86_64-msvc-2: 8066.6s -> 8790.3s (+9.0%)
x86_64-gnu: 7543.0s -> 8209.4s (+8.8%)
dist-x86_64-apple: 7530.0s -> 6885.8s (-8.6%)
tidy: 156.1s -> 169.1s (+8.3%)
x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2710.6s -> 2514.3s (-7.2%)
dist-i686-linux: 6468.8s -> 6022.2s (-6.9%)
dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw: 5967.7s -> 5567.0s (-6.7%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

rust-timer · 2026-01-04T02:46:30Z

Finished benchmarking commit (f57b9e6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	16
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	16

Bootstrap: 475.226s -> 474.455s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 390.78 MiB -> 390.84 MiB (0.01%)

rustbot assigned Mark-Simulacrum Jan 1, 2026

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 1, 2026

reddevilmidzy reviewed Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

rwardd commented Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test: added codegen tests for permutations of Option::or

80acf74

rwardd force-pushed the rwardd/option_or_codegen_tests branch from 1612a70 to 80acf74 Compare January 1, 2026 11:58

rustbot assigned scottmcm and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Jan 1, 2026

scottmcm reviewed Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm requested changes Jan 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 1, 2026

rwardd and others added 2 commits January 2, 2026 12:01

fix: add CHECK-SAME labels to verify generated function type for `u…

bf2078b

…8` and `[u8; 1]` cases Co-authored-by: scottmcm <[email protected]>

fix: added further CHECK-SAME labels and replaced all struct inpu…

66c4ead

…t tests with `NonZero<u8>` input

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 2, 2026

scottmcm reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/codegen-llvm/issues/multiple-option-or-permutations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

scottmcm requested changes Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 2, 2026

rwardd and others added 2 commits January 3, 2026 10:53

fix: use std::num::NonZero instead of extern crate and extend inf…

3df06f5

…ormation in `CHECK-` directives Co-authored-by: scottmcm <[email protected]>

fix: add CHECK directives to ret comments and be more pervasive w…

a2fcb0d

…ith directive contents

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 3, 2026

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 3, 2026

scottmcm approved these changes Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jan 3, 2026

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 3, 2026

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 4, 2026

bors merged commit f57b9e6 into rust-lang:main Jan 4, 2026
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Added codegen tests for different forms of Option::or #150564

Added codegen tests for different forms of Option::or #150564

Conversation

rwardd commented Jan 1, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jan 1, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jan 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Jan 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

scottmcm left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jan 1, 2026

Uh oh!

rwardd commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

rwardd commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

scottmcm Jan 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

scottmcm Jan 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

scottmcm left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rwardd commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-log-analyzer commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 4, 2026

Test differences

Stage 1

Stage 2

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Jan 4, 2026

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Instruction count

Max RSS (memory usage)

Cycles

Binary size

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Added codegen tests for different forms of `Option::or` #150564

Added codegen tests for different forms of `Option::or` #150564

rwardd commented Jan 1, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

scottmcm left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading

scottmcm left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading