-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Consistent Handler
naming
#119063
Consistent Handler
naming
#119063
Conversation
Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred in need_type_info.rs cc @lcnr Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt cc @rust-lang/rustfmt Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift cc @bjorn3 Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri
|
Apologies for the massively tedious review. I split it into lots of commits so that each commit (except the last few) does exactly one change. And I already have conflicts since I started this last night, lol. |
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.
r=me after responding to some questions + one nit
@@ -200,18 +200,11 @@ pub(crate) fn run_fat( | |||
modules: Vec<FatLtoInput<LlvmCodegenBackend>>, | |||
cached_modules: Vec<(SerializedModule<ModuleBuffer>, WorkProduct)>, | |||
) -> Result<LtoModuleCodegen<LlvmCodegenBackend>, FatalError> { | |||
let diag_handler = cgcx.create_diag_handler(); | |||
let (symbols_below_threshold, upstream_modules) = prepare_lto(cgcx, &diag_handler)?; | |||
let dcx = cgcx.create_dcx(); |
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.
I wonder if this should be create_diag_ctxt
or something
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.
I don't see why function names need to be different to variable names. Consistency is good.
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.
It's consistent with variable names, but not the type name. I consider it more normal for a constructor function to be called create_type_name, personally.
Thank you for the fast review! @bors r=compiler-errors |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
…veKind::Diagnostic::dcx`.
I fixed the rustfmt failure. @bors r=compiler-errors p=1 High-priority because it's conflict prone. |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (cda4736): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. 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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 671.683s -> 673.091s (0.21%) |
Fixes needed due to renaming of a few items: - rust-lang/rust#119063
This PR implements the renaming described in rust-lang/compiler-team#699.
r? @compiler-errors