- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 13.9k
          Remove some ref patterns from the compiler
          #106090
        
          New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri | 
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, most of those look way better now! One let_else fomatting fix (really excited for the day when rustfmt will finally work with it :D) and a nit that you may or may not address, whatever you prefer.
r=me then
| ☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106228) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. | 
54e9d25    to
    958017a      
    Compare
  
    
      
        
              This comment has been minimized.
        
        
      
    
  This comment has been minimized.
| ☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106760) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. | 
9d1af0b    to
    5d1202b      
    Compare
  
    | I think I've addressed all review comments. @rustbot ready | 
| ☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106801) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. | 
290bc56    to
    93f40f7      
    Compare
  
    | @bors try @rust-timer queue | 
      
        
              This comment has been minimized.
        
        
      
    
  This comment has been minimized.
| ⌛ Trying commit 93f40f77ea04d0f59f10f0dda242814e4df5cc44 with merge 5cb9c9d58b4d1ad3f602047be2697d7569345deb... | 
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few more comments, but looking good overall
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All of these bugs make me think that we should have expect_* methods on ImplItemKind - but that's something for the future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very weird, I hope there wasn't something weird going on, but the change looks correct🤨. Well, there are quite a few of those around, I guess it's just an artifact of refactorings and made sense at some point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, when I was removing these I was triple checking in case I've missed something ><
| ☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions | 
- add back accidentally removed new lines - try to deref in patterns, rather than in expressions (maybe this was the reason of perf regression?...)
ed36f2e    to
    4a6d9de      
    Compare
  
    d85d820    to
    65d1e8d      
    Compare
  
    | @bors try | 
7b10723    to
    b1ece2e      
    Compare
  
    b1ece2e    to
    65d1e8d      
    Compare
  
    | The builder that was failing now passes, so I think this should be ready to be merged. | 
|  | ||
| // Skip over '{' at the start of the tail, so we don't later wrongfully consider this as json. | ||
| // See <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Weird.20CI.20failure/near/321797811> | ||
| while tail.get(0) == Some(&b'{') { | ||
| tail = &tail[1..]; | ||
| skipped += 1; | ||
| } | 
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is, uh, certainly something. fun that no one has hit this before, you were the lucky one!
| That was quite a PR, as I said already it would be nice if it was better split-up next time. But anyways, should be good to go now! | 
| ☀️ Test successful - checks-actions | 
| Finished benchmarking commit (56ee852): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. 
 Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. 
 CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. 
 | 
Previous PR: #105368
r? @Nilstrieb