Skip to content

Use the now available implementation of IntoIterator for arrays#86311

Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
LeSeulArtichaut:cleanup-array-iter
Jun 15, 2021
Merged

Use the now available implementation of IntoIterator for arrays#86311
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
LeSeulArtichaut:cleanup-array-iter

Conversation

@LeSeulArtichaut
Copy link
Contributor

@LeSeulArtichaut LeSeulArtichaut commented Jun 14, 2021

No description provided.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

rust-highfive commented Jun 14, 2021

Some changes occured to rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Changes rustc_apfloat. rustc_apfloat is currently in limbo and you almost certainly don't want to change it (see #55993).

cc @eddyb

Some changes occurred in intra-doc-links.

cc @jyn514

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

rust-highfive commented Jun 14, 2021

r? @jackh726

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jun 14, 2021
@LeSeulArtichaut LeSeulArtichaut added the C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. label Jun 14, 2021
jyn514
jyn514 reviewed Jun 14, 2021
View reviewed changes
compiler/rustc_passes/src/stability.rs
check_features(&mut remaining_lib_features, &local_defined_features);

for &cnum in &*tcx.crates() {
for &cnum in tcx.crates() {
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 Jun 14, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the leading & still necessary?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@LeSeulArtichaut LeSeulArtichaut Jun 14, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tcx.crates() is a slice (&'tcx [CrateNum]), so I guess we either have to write &cnum or *tcx.crates().

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Jun 14, 2021

@bors try @rust-timer queue

This is nice to land either way, but I suspect it might be marginally faster.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Jun 14, 2021

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 14, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 14, 2021

⌛ Trying commit e3ca81f with merge 757fd2dd198bc97dce4a56245d380a4a37037329...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 14, 2021

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 757fd2dd198bc97dce4a56245d380a4a37037329 (757fd2dd198bc97dce4a56245d380a4a37037329)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Jun 14, 2021

Queued 757fd2dd198bc97dce4a56245d380a4a37037329 with parent 3044419, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Jun 15, 2021

Finished benchmarking try commit (757fd2dd198bc97dce4a56245d380a4a37037329): comparison url.

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. Please note that if the perf results are neutral, you should likely undo the rollup=never given below by specifying rollup- to bors.

Importantly, though, if the results of this run are non-neutral do not roll this PR up -- it will mask other regressions or improvements in the roll up.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 15, 2021
@jackh726
Copy link
Member

jackh726 commented Jun 15, 2021

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2021

📌 Commit e3ca81f has been approved by jackh726

@bors 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 Jun 15, 2021
scottmcm
scottmcm reviewed Jun 15, 2021
View reviewed changes
compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/place_op.rs
);

for &unsize in &[false, true] {
for unsize in [false, true] {
Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm Jun 15, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not something that needs changing in this PR: I wonder, in general, how perf differs between copying an array vs slice-iterating the rvalue-static-promoted one.

Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 Jun 15, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See the perf run, looks like not much: #86311 (comment). But it might just be because these aren't in perf-sensitive parts of the compiler.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2021

⌛ Testing commit e3ca81f with merge 6936ca8...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 15, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing 6936ca8 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 15, 2021
@bors bors merged commit 6936ca8 into rust-lang:master Jun 15, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.55.0 milestone Jun 15, 2021
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2021
Closed
@LeSeulArtichaut LeSeulArtichaut deleted the cleanup-array-iter branch June 15, 2021 10:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@scottmcm scottmcm scottmcm left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@jyn514 jyn514 jyn514 left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@jackh726 jackh726

Labels

C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

1.55.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@LeSeulArtichaut @rust-highfive @jyn514 @rust-timer @bors @jackh726 @scottmcm @rustbot