-
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
BTreeMap: replace Root with NodeRef<Owned, ...> #78104
Conversation
0db2701
to
591aa08
Compare
I'm going to wait for the changes in #77244 to get rebased away, I think that'll help with review (since we had changed some things upstream in that PR). That said I think I agree that I like this PR's idea. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #77244) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:
|
591aa08
to
ea4627a
Compare
ea4627a
to
da61221
Compare
da61221
to
b9e727f
Compare
b9e727f
to
2df9277
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 2df9277 has been approved by |
…mulacrum BTreeMap: ban BoxedNode from Root `NodeRef<marker::Owned, …>` already exists as a representation of root nodes, and it makes more sense to alias `Root` to that than to reuse the space-efficient `BoxedNode` that is oblivious to height, where height is required. r? @Mark-Simulacrum
this has conflicts: @bors r- |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #78015) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:
|
2df9277
to
7cf9cf9
Compare
Still contains (builds on) #78359. I don't care if they are merged separately, but this one seems more fragile. Also, I'm now thinking it would be better to stop using the Root alias at the node level and move it up to the map level. |
Hm, I'm not sure I quite follow, but I think this feels wrong -- roots are useful when e.g. splitting out a subtree which will later be joined in a different place. I'm not sure that the code will care too much about this distinction though. |
⌛ Testing commit 9fca57c with merge 23f0c771fe1e965804082861824289a26677c121... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
Not a rotten apple this time, but PS 🤦♂️ that's almost literally what it says one line lower |
@bors retry - hopefully spurious, or alternatively everything is going to fail with this... |
⌛ Testing commit 9fca57c with merge 2e68256e76e4afcad0a5a7f96c99a1fe84637847... |
Your PR failed (pretty log, raw log). Through arcane magic we have determined that the following fragments from the build log may contain information about the problem. Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
@bors retry OpenSSL SSL_read: Connection was reset |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
…mulacrum BTreeMap: swap the names of NodeRef::new and Root::new_leaf rust-lang#78104 preserved the name of Root::new_leaf to minimize changes, but the resulting names are confusing. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
NodeRef<marker::Owned, …>
already exists as a representation of root nodes, and it makes more sense to aliasRoot
to that than to reuse the space-efficientBoxedNode
that is oblivious to height, where height is required.r? @Mark-Simulacrum