-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Remove hir::GenericBound::Unsized
#88061
Conversation
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit 037f6e7 with merge 8362fb41daff715052b561141047044753cdc3e8... |
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Queued 8362fb41daff715052b561141047044753cdc3e8 with parent c0490a2, future comparison URL. |
Finished benchmarking try commit (8362fb41daff715052b561141047044753cdc3e8): 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 |
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.
Cursory look at the code changes make sense. When I introduced Unsized
I think there were some comments that I replaced that we might want to bring back.
037f6e7
to
08ec7ba
Compare
@estebank can you be more clear? The only comment (I think) that you replaced was in |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #88328) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
r=me after rebase |
08ec7ba
to
22ef04e
Compare
@bors r=estebank |
📌 Commit 22ef04e has been approved by |
@bors r=estebank |
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
📌 Commit 22ef04e has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (72969f6): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
Rather than "moving" the
?Sized
bounds to the param bounds, just also check where clauses inastconv
. I also did some related cleanup here, but that's not strictly neccesary. Also going to do a perf run here.r? @estebank