Skip to content

Rollup of 5 pull requests #73081

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Jun 7, 2020
Merged

Rollup of 5 pull requests #73081

merged 19 commits into from
Jun 7, 2020

Conversation

Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost

RalfJung and others added 19 commits May 31, 2020 10:50
We were computing a merge-base between the remote beta and master
branches, but this was giving incorrect answers for the first beta if
the remote hadn't been pushed yet. For instance, `1.45.0-beta.3359`
corresponds to the number of merges since the 1.44 beta, but we really
want just `.1` for the sole 1.45 beta promotion merge.

We don't really need to query the remote beta at all -- `master..HEAD`
suffices if we assume that we're on the intended beta branch already.
…nas-schievink

validate basic sanity for TerminatorKind

r? @jonas-schievink

This mainly checks that all `BasicBlock` actually exist. On top of that, it checks that `Call` actually calls something of `FnPtr`/`FnDef` type, and `Assert` has to work on a `bool`. Also `SwitchInt` cannot have an empty target list.
…jasper

Revert pr 71840

Revert7 PR rust-lang#71840 to fix issue rust-lang#72470

This will need a backport to beta if we do not want rust-lang#72470 to hit stable.
Count the beta prerelease number just from master

We were computing a merge-base between the remote beta and master
branches, but this was giving incorrect answers for the first beta if
the remote hadn't been pushed yet. For instance, `1.45.0-beta.3359`
corresponds to the number of merges since the 1.44 beta, but we really
want just `.1` for the sole 1.45 beta promotion merge.

We don't really need to query the remote beta at all -- `master..HEAD`
suffices if we assume that we're on the intended beta branch already.
@Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link
Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 7, 2020

📌 Commit b117a39 has been approved by Dylan-DPC

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jun 7, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 7, 2020

⌛ Testing commit b117a39 with merge 450abe8...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 7, 2020

☀️ Test successful - checks-azure
Approved by: Dylan-DPC
Pushing 450abe8 to master...

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

This was a small perf loss. Ignore the script-servo-opt change, that one bounces around like crazy. There were some small improvements, but more losses.

@pnkfelix, @RalfJung: your PRs seem the mostly likely causes. Any ideas?

@Dylan-DPC-zz Dylan-DPC-zz deleted the rollup-1aqk215 branch June 9, 2020 00:12
@Dylan-DPC-zz
Copy link
Author

would recommend branching off to a new issue - makes it easier to track than on a merged pr

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

RalfJung commented Jun 9, 2020

@nnethercote I measured perf impact of MIR validation in #73087, and it came out with "basically no impact". That measurement includes this PR. So I think it's not my PR -- but I might misinterpret.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

I can believe that my revert (PR #72989) of the drop tree reworking (PR #71840) caused regressions.

But that injected bugs, so we have to live with the revert for the short term at least.

@cuviper cuviper added this to the 1.46 milestone May 2, 2024
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants