Use box syntax everywhere #87804
Use box syntax everywhere #87804
Conversation
Result of running: rg -l "Box::new" compiler/ | rg '.rs$' | rg -v 'cranelift' | xargs sed -i 's/Box::new(/box (/'
|
Some changes occured to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri |
|
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors try |
|
⌛ Trying commit cbd8fcd with merge 69c94e269ddbe56fb5388e19bcd469b6500fa5ea... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
petrochenkov
added
S-waiting-on-perf
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
est31
force-pushed
the
box_syntax_everywhere
branch
from
4818909
to
d5d2fb6
Compare
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
|
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
|
⌛ Trying commit d5d2fb6 with merge 97d3a002940f685cc3fc98436ceaaa36eb1fb802... |
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
|
Queued 97d3a002940f685cc3fc98436ceaaa36eb1fb802 with parent 1f94abc, future comparison URL. |
| @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ macro_rules! err_exhaust { | |||
| #[macro_export] | |||
| macro_rules! err_machine_stop { | |||
| ($($tt:tt)*) => { | |||
| $crate::mir::interpret::InterpError::MachineStop(Box::new($($tt)*)) | |||
| $crate::mir::interpret::InterpError::MachineStop(box ($($tt)*)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will mean other crates using the macro (such as standalone Miri) need to also enable the box feature, right? I think I'd prefer to avoid that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There exists #[allow_internal_unstable] to prevent that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Example macro that does this for box syntax is the vec macro. As @petrochenkov correctly assumed, this PR was a test run though to explore the implications of using box syntax everywhere.
|
Finished benchmarking try commit (97d3a002940f685cc3fc98436ceaaa36eb1fb802): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any significant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. @bors rollup=never |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-perf
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
This is a slight regression of up to 0.3%. No improvements. |
|
I assume this was opened only to measure performance, without intent to actually merge the changes, so closing. |
Alternative PR to #87781 .
As suggested by @leonardo-m :#87781 (comment)