Rollup of 10 pull requests #89783
Closed
Rollup of 10 pull requests #89783
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Rather than compiling rustbuild and all its dependencies with `debuginfo=2`, this compiles dependencies without debuginfo and rustbuild with `debuginfo=1`. On my laptop, this brings compile times down from ~1:20 to ~1:05.
This seems to no longer be giving spurious errors when incremental is enabled.
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <[email protected]>
Use Ancestory to check default fn in const impl instead of comparing idents Fixes https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/146212-t-compiler.2Fconst-eval/topic/Const.20trait.20impl.20inside.20macro
Fix inherent impl overlap check. The current implementation of the overlap check was slightly buggy, and unified the wrong connected component in the `ids.len() <= 1` case. This became visible in another PR which changed the iteration order of items. r? `@matthewjasper` since you reviewed the other PR.
Add `Poll::ready` and revert stabilization of `task::ready!` This PR adds an inherent `ready` method to `Poll` that can be used with the `?` operator as an alternative to the `task::ready!` macro: ```rust let val = ready!(fut.poll(cx)); let val = fut.poll(cx).ready()?; ``` I think this form is a nice, non-breaking middle ground between changing the `impl Try for Poll`, and adding a separate macro. It looks better than `ready!` in my opinion, and it composes well: ```rust let elem = ready!(fut.poll(cx)).pop().unwrap(); let elem = fut.poll(cx).ready()?.pop().unwrap(); ``` The planned stabilization of `ready!` in 1.56 has been reverted because I think this alternate approach is worth considering. r? rust-lang/libs
Re-use TypeChecker instead of passing around some of its fields In the future (for lazy TAIT) we will need more of its fields, but even ignoring that, this change seems reasonable on its own to me.
…lacrum Greatly reduce amount of debuginfo compiled for bootstrap itself Rather than compiling rustbuild and all its dependencies with `debuginfo=2`, this compiles dependencies without debuginfo and rustbuild with `debuginfo=1`. On my laptop, this brings compile times down from ~1:20 to ~1:05. See also https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/async.20in.20bootstrap.3F/near/254847594. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
…ark-Simulacrum Remove hack ignoring unused attributes for stage 0 std This seems to no longer be giving spurious errors when incremental is enabled. Closes rust-lang#58633.
…, r=joshtriplett Add #[must_use] to MaybeUninit::new As discussed in rust-lang#89729 (comment). Parent issue: rust-lang#89692 r? `@joshtriplett`
…=joshtriplett Add #[must_use] to From::from and Into::into Risk of churn: **High** Magic 8-Ball says: **Outlook not so good** I figured I'd put this out there. If we don't do it now maybe we save it for a rainy day. Parent issue: rust-lang#89692 r? `@joshtriplett`
…-test-gdb, r=Mark-Simulacrum Fix function-names test for GDB 10.1 This PR updates the test output in `src/test/debuginfo/function-names.rs` for GDB 10.1. This should fix issue rust-lang#89750 -- but not the underlying problem of CI ignoring tests if not viable debugger happens to be present.
…ons, r=joshtriplett Add #[must_use] to as_type conversions Clippy missed these: ```rust alloc::string::String fn as_mut_str(&mut self) -> &mut str; core::mem::NonNull<T> unsafe fn as_uninit_mut<'a>(&mut self) -> &'a MaybeUninit<T>; str unsafe fn as_bytes_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [u8]; str fn as_mut_ptr(&mut self) -> *mut u8; ``` Parent issue: rust-lang#89692 r? `@joshtriplett`
|
@bors r+ p=10 rollup=never |
|
📌 Commit 96fe5ad has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
#89756 can be perf sensitive? |
|
I wondered too, but it's just affecting the build of the tool that builds the compiler, so it shouldn't have any effect on rustc itself. |
|
⌛ Testing commit 96fe5ad with merge 1cc688eab338e30397d2c762bb6441d77ed761df... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
Poll::readyand revert stabilization oftask::ready!#89651 (AddPoll::readyand revert stabilization oftask::ready!)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup