-
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
Rollup of 5 pull requests #96178
Rollup of 5 pull requests #96178
Conversation
The macro was a reimplementation of the function.
Update books ## nomicon 1 commits in 11f1165e8a2f5840467e748c8108dc53c948ee9a..c7d8467ca9158da58ef295ae65dbf00a308752d9 2022-03-19 16:02:00 -0400 to 2022-04-06 14:26:54 +0900 - Change "writers" to "readers" for Deref. (rust-lang/nomicon#346) ## reference 7 commits in c97d14fa6fed0baa9255432b8a93cb70614f80e3..b5f6c2362baf932db9440fbfcb509b309237ee85 2022-03-19 18:18:10 -0700 to 2022-04-10 19:19:51 -0700 - Fix typo: `?` should be inside `<sup>` tags (rust-lang/reference#1190) - Update aarch64 to use neon as fp (rust-lang/reference#1184) - Boolean literal expressions (rust-lang/reference#1189) - Document that unary negation of a signed integer literal cannot cause an overflow error (rust-lang/reference#1188) - Document compatibility between declarative and procedural macro tokens (rust-lang/reference#1169) - Document native library modifier syntax and the `whole-archive` modifier specifically (rust-lang/reference#1170) - Numeric literal expressions and literal suffixes (rust-lang/reference#1177) ## book 8 commits in ea90bbaf53ba64ef4e2da9ac2352b298aec6bec8..765318b844569a642ceef7bf1adab9639cbf6af3 2022-03-28 21:59:34 -0400 to 2022-04-12 21:14:47 -0400 - Propagate nostarch edits to src - Propagate updated test example code to nostarch snapshot - Edits to nostarch edits - edits from nostarch - Fix error message for the example code - update ch13-02 to reflect changes in rust-lang/book#2797 - Update to 1.59 - Edits to chapter 2 after tech review ## rust-by-example 4 commits in ec954f35eedf592cd173b21c05a7f80a65b61d8a..c2a98d9fc5d29c481d42052fbeccfde15ed03116 2022-03-22 11:09:06 -0300 to 2022-04-08 06:44:18 -0300 - Code highlight a variable (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1530) - Add a comment to note that warnings may not be shown in a browser in the Variable Bindings section (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1529) - Make all new types have UpperCamelCase names in code example in the Aliasing section (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1528) - Replace `C` with C/C++ (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1527) ## rustc-dev-guide 6 commits in 155126b1d2e2cb01ddb1d7ba9489b90d7cd173ad..eeb5a83c15b6ae60df3e4f19207376b22c6fbc4c 2022-03-22 14:34:21 +0100 to 2022-04-11 23:29:48 +0900 - method-lookup.md improvements (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1296) - Consolidate crates.io convention section (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1326) - Update examples with 1.61.0-nightly (latest version) (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1330) - r-a: Use `python3 x.py` instead of `./x.py` (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1335) - Update miri.md: correct a minor typo (rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1334) - Add example how lints can be feature gated
Reword clarification on lifetime for ptr->ref safety docs I believe the current wording of the safety comment is somewhat misleading, and that this is more accurate. Suggested by `@CAD97` in this thread on the topic https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-lang.2Fwg-unsafe-code-guidelines/topic/Lifetime.20of.20reference.20pointer.20docs.20issue Just to check that this is correct, CC `@RalfJung.` I suppose it's open for interpretation as to whether or not this is more clear. I think it is.
…=GuillaumeGomez Fix snapshot --bless not working anymore in htmldocck I broke it in rust-lang#95933 r? ```@GuillaumeGomez```
…ackh726 Use revisions instead of nll compare mode for `/self/` ui tests r? ``@jackh726``
Replace u8to64_le macro with u64::from_le_bytes The macro was a reimplementation of the function.
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
📌 Commit 55e3997 has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (8305398): comparison url. Summary:
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Footnotes |
visiting for weekly performance triage. this regressed syn-1.0.89 opt full by 2.5%. The only PR on the list in this rollup that I could imagine having any effect at all on performance is PR #96156. I tried to skim over the control-flow for the resulting method calls; they look like they are at least all marked with In any case, looking at the graph for syn-1.0.89-opt: @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
Oh, and I did look at the cachegrind output for syn-1.0.89-opt; posted here: https://gist.github.com/4d10eb49892af0df7249014707d86cdc it looks to me like this regression is peanut-butter smeared all over llvm backend work. (Which I think is at least consistent with a hypothesis that this is due to replacing the macro-defn with a procedure.) |
Successful merges:
/self/
ui tests #96148 (Use revisions instead of nll compare mode for/self/
ui tests)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup