Skip to content

Conversation

samueltardieu
Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu commented Sep 14, 2025

Since an asm!() statement is mostly unknown, as we do not know what it does, consider all labels' break as being conditionally executed only.

Fixes #15673

changelog: [never_loop]: do not consider break labels used in asm!() as being unconditionally executed as they might not be

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Sep 14, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 14, 2025

r? @y21

rustbot has assigned @y21.
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

Since an `asm!()` statement is mostly unknown, as we do not know what it
does, consider all labels' `break` as being conditionally executed only.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 6, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

never_loop false positive with inline assembly label blocks
3 participants