Skip to content

Use the now available implementation of IntoIterator for arrays #86311

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 15, 2021
Merged

Use the now available implementation of IntoIterator for arrays #86311

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 15, 2021

Conversation

LeSeulArtichaut
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

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

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
@@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ pub fn check_unused_or_stable_features(tcx: TyCtxt<'_>) {
if !remaining_lib_features.is_empty() {
check_features(&mut remaining_lib_features, &local_defined_features);

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

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

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

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

Queued 757fd2dd198bc97dce4a56245d380a4a37037329 with parent 3044419, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

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

@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
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> FnCtxt<'a, 'tcx> {
expr, base_expr, adjusted_ty, index_ty
);

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

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

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

@jyn514 jyn514 jyn514 left review comments

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