Skip to content
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

Use size_of_val instead of manual calculation #109287

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 18, 2023

Conversation

scottmcm
Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm commented Mar 18, 2023

Very minor thing that I happened to notice in passing, but it's both shorter and means it gets mul nsw, so why not.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 18, 2023

r? @thomcc

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 18, 2023
@rustbot

This comment was marked as resolved.

Very minor thing that I happened to notice in passing, but it's both shorter and means it gets `mul nuw`, so why not.
@scottmcm scottmcm force-pushed the hash-slice-size-of-val branch from 7693e92 to 3508879 Compare March 18, 2023 02:57
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ pub fn size_and_align_of_dst<'a, 'tcx, Bx: BuilderMethods<'a, 'tcx>>(
// NOTE: ideally, we want the effects of both `unchecked_smul` and `unchecked_umul`
// (resulting in `mul nsw nuw` in LLVM IR), since we know that the multiplication
// cannot signed wrap, and that both operands are non-negative. But at the time of writing,
// `BuilderMethods` can't do this, and it doesn't seem to enable any further optimizations.
// the `LLVM-C` binding can't do this, and it doesn't seem to enable any further optimizations.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just to keep someone else from going "well adding it to our trait sounds easy" -- the actual hard part is adding it to

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/681d5eecf7b32748763e5a8f56f7c334d8d6901e/llvm/include/llvm-c/Core.h#L3873-L3876

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Mar 18, 2023

r? @oli-obk
@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 18, 2023

📌 Commit 3508879 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned thomcc Mar 18, 2023
@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 18, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2023
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#107416 (Error code E0794 for late-bound lifetime parameter error.)
 - rust-lang#108772 (Speed up tidy quite a lot)
 - rust-lang#109193 (Add revisions for -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty fixed tests)
 - rust-lang#109234 (Tweak implementation of overflow checking assertions)
 - rust-lang#109238 (Fix generics mismatch errors for RPITITs on -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty)
 - rust-lang#109283 (rustdoc: reduce allocations in `visibility_to_src_with_space`)
 - rust-lang#109287 (Use `size_of_val` instead of manual calculation)
 - rust-lang#109288 (Stabilise `unix_socket_abstract`)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 0aa0043 into rust-lang:master Mar 18, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.70.0 milestone Mar 18, 2023
@scottmcm scottmcm deleted the hash-slice-size-of-val branch March 18, 2023 16:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants