Rollup of 8 pull requests #121055
Merged
Rollup of 8 pull requests #121055
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
`compile_fail` should only be used when the code is meant to show what *not* to do. In other words, there should be a fundamental flaw in the code. However, in this case, the example is just incomplete, so we should use `ignore` to avoid confusing readers.
So it follows the same pattern as all the other `struct_span_*` methods.
There are a couple of places where we call `inner.emitter.emit_diagnostic` directly rather than going through `inner.emit_diagnostic`, to guarantee the diagnostic is printed. This feels dubious to me, particularly the bypassing of `TRACK_DIAGNOSTIC`. This commit removes those. - In `print_error_count`, it uses `ForceWarning` instead of `Warning`. - It removes `DiagCtxtInner::failure_note`, because it only has three uses and direct use of `emit_diagnostic` is consistent with other similar locations. - It removes `force_print_diagnostic`, and adds `struct_failure_note`, and updates `print_query_stack` accordingly, which makes it more normal. That location doesn't seem to need forced printing anyway.
Several fields were not being reset. Using destructuring makes it much harder to miss a field.
… r=lcnr Check normalized call signature for WF in mir typeck Unfortunately we don't check that the built-in implementations for `Fn*` traits are actually well-formed in the same way that we do for user-provided impls. Essentially, when checking a call terminator, we end up with a signature that references an unnormalized `<[closure] as FnOnce<...>>::Output` in its output. That output type, due to the built-in impl, doesn't follow the expected rule that `WF(ty)` implies `WF(normalized(ty))`. We fix this by also checking the normalized signature here. **See** boxy's detailed and useful explanation comment which explains this in more detail: rust-lang#114936 (comment) Fixes rust-lang#114936 Fixes rust-lang#118876 r? types cc ``@BoxyUwU`` ``@lcnr``
…ram, r=notriddle rustdoc: replace `clean::InstantiationParam` with `clean::GenericArg` Probably better known as `SubstParam` (until rust-lang#120958 which should've probably renamed it to `InstantiatedParam` but anyways). It doesn't make any sense to me why it should exist as a separate type. `GenericArg` is exactly what we want here anyways from a semantic perspective. Both have the same size btw. I also took the liberty of doing some drive-by cleanups.
remove unnecessary calls to `commit_if_ok` we propagate the error outwards, so anything which wants to discard the error should do so itself. r? types
…ion, r=jsha Remove jsha from the rustdoc review rotation As discussed r? ``@jsha``
…tic, r=oli-obk Remove `force_print_diagnostic` More diagnostic cleanups, best reviewed one at a time. r? `@oli-obk`
add lcnr to the compiler-team assignment group
… r=Nilstrieb Fix incorrect use of `compile_fail` `compile_fail` should only be used when the code is meant to show what *not* to do. In other words, there should be a fundamental flaw in the code. However, in this case, the example is just incomplete, so we should use `ignore` to avoid confusing readers.
Do not assemble candidates for default impls
There is no reason (as far as I can tell?) that we should assemble an impl candidate for a default impl. This candidate itself does not prove that the impl holds, and any time that it *does* hold, there will be a more specializing non-default impl that also is assembled.
This is because `default impl<T> Foo for T {}` actually expands to `impl<T> Foo for T where T: Foo {}`. The only way to satisfy that where clause (without coinduction) is via *another* implementation that does hold -- precisely an impl that specializes it.
This should fix the specialization related regressions for rust-lang#116494. That should lead to one root crate regression that doesn't have to do with specialization, which I think we can regress.
r? lcnr cc ``@rust-lang/types``
cc rust-lang#31844
rustbot
added
A-meta
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=8 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118882 (Check normalized call signature for WF in mir typeck) - rust-lang#120999 (rustdoc: replace `clean::InstantiationParam` with `clean::GenericArg`) - rust-lang#121002 (remove unnecessary calls to `commit_if_ok`) - rust-lang#121005 (Remove jsha from the rustdoc review rotation) - rust-lang#121014 (Remove `force_print_diagnostic`) - rust-lang#121043 (add lcnr to the compiler-team assignment group) - rust-lang#121046 (Fix incorrect use of `compile_fail`) - rust-lang#121047 (Do not assemble candidates for default impls) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain) Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 37b65339c8 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
This was referenced Feb 14, 2024
|
Finished benchmarking commit (7508c3e): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDEDNext Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 631.732s -> 630.069s (-0.26%) |
|
Improvements outweigh the regressions. Nice @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
rustbot
added
the
perf-regression-triaged
4 tasks
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# 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:
clean::InstantiationParamwithclean::GenericArg#120999 (rustdoc: replaceclean::InstantiationParamwithclean::GenericArg)commit_if_ok#121002 (remove unnecessary calls tocommit_if_ok)force_print_diagnostic#121014 (Removeforce_print_diagnostic)compile_fail#121046 (Fix incorrect use ofcompile_fail)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup