)]}'
{
  "commit": "6fddd30dd32039a1844bf87ff5897f38f4c06bf2",
  "tree": "3b9d576fa0eb8784a2d6bdcda17701f5aad7139f",
  "parents": [
    "80029643436da007381df365dc776bfe2371a742",
    "9b188dd6c50ed504ed0eaf80dfe8f4ef1b56cf5c"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Jonathan Brouwer",
    "email": "jonathantbrouwer@gmail.com",
    "time": "Fri Jun 26 20:22:19 2026 +0200"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "GitHub",
    "email": "noreply@github.com",
    "time": "Fri Jun 26 20:22:19 2026 +0200"
  },
  "message": "Rollup merge of #157127 - scottmcm:tweak-layout-of-alternative, r\u003dnikic\n\ncg_LLVM: Stop needing an alloca for volatile loads\n\nThis ended up also being reimplementing it to not use `load` of the `llvm_type`, since without doing that everything blew up horribly.  cc the zulip conversation [#t-opsem \u003e Defining volatile splitting @ 💬](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/136281-t-opsem/topic/Defining.20volatile.20splitting/near/597451615).\n\nAnd while I\u0027m here, improve the tests to check that the unaligned ones are actually unaligned, since `unaligned_volatile_load::\u003cu8\u003e` doesn\u0027t actually test anything.\n\nr? @nikic\ncc @RalfJung\nMCP tracking issue rust-lang/rust#153250\n",
  "tree_diff": []
}