docs(gc): state the static checker's scope and its three blind spots - #7289
Merged
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe PR documents the static checker’s emitted-LLVM scope, three known blind spots, symbol-set classification issues, and validation methods. It adds matching changelog text. ChangesStatic checker scope documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
This was referenced Aug 3, 2026
Open
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Addresses the Major review comment on #7281, which I merged past.
docs/src/internals/gc-rooting-invariant.mdsaid:and, eight lines later:
Both sentences were true of different classes, but read sequentially they contradict, and the second is the one someone acts on. That is how a clean checker report becomes evidence of safety.
This states the scope explicitly — emitted-LLVM rooting hazards — and names the three blind spots, each attributed to the incident that found it:
0 violationson both sides of a real bug whose fix was a one-lineGcSuppressScope.POLL_CAPABLE_RUNTIMEcarriedjs_object_get_field_by_name— which codegen never emits — besidejs_object_set_field_by_name, which it emits verbatim. Sets classifiedMOVING: YES, getsMOVING: no, and 31 stale uses were dropped by--moving-only.Also points at the coverage gap #7280 records: 25 curated corpus files pass while 20 lines of stock zod fail, so a dependency-scale workload belongs in the checklist next to the zeal arms.
Docs only.
Summary by CodeRabbit