-
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
Check fat pointer metadata compatibility modulo regions #103390
Conversation
r? @eholk (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (9cdfe03): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. |
I'd think this is the bitmaps noise I expected to see when looking at today's results. |
Yeah, I think it's noise too. This |
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
…, r=eholk Check fat pointer metadata compatibility modulo regions Regions don't really mean anything anyways during hir typeck. If this `erase_regions` makes anyone nervous, it's probably equally valid to just equate the types using a type relation, but regardless we should _not_ be using strict type equality while region variables are present. Fixes rust-lang#103384
Regions don't really mean anything anyways during hir typeck.
If this
erase_regions
makes anyone nervous, it's probably equally valid to just equate the types using a type relation, but regardless we should not be using strict type equality while region variables are present.Fixes #103384