RustBelt post: link to final version

[web.git] / personal / _posts / 2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md b/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md
index 6ddc745f6e76b186fc0d6a2a65dce33a7865926a..f631e7abd4d5a63b477501d38b3df785a12fbc0c 100644 (file)
--- a/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2017-06-06-MIR-semantics.md
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ So, did we find a bug?
 
 Well, maybe.
 Or maybe the rules we picked were just too conservative.
-At this point, I ended up in a lengthy discussion with @eddyb and @arielb1, who both know approximately infinitely more about LLVM and rustc than I do, and this is how the third option in the list arose:
+At this point, I ended up in a lengthy discussion with @eddyb and @arielb1 and some folks in #rustc, who know approximately infinitely more about LLVM and rustc than I do, and this is how the third option in the list arose:
 When performing `StorageLive` on a variable that already is live, forget the value that is currently in the local variable, but otherwise keep it live.
 This is consistent with what we have caught LLVM doing.
 It is hard to get any more definite than this.
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ This is not very satisfying, but lacking a more precise description of the LLVM
 The good news is that with this choice of MIR semantics, miri's test suite passes.
 We can thus be sure (well, insofar as the test suite is representative -- this will hopefully get better over time) that rustc produces code that follows our new rules.
 
-## And the moral of this story
+## And the Moral of This Story
 
 So, what did we learn?