-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Fix const deref methods display #91291
Conversation
bc3aacb
to
985a011
Compare
Updated! |
985a011
to
9e8cd4f
Compare
@camelid I think you had a great idea: replacing the @bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit 9e8cd4f0e1f6af9c8d7fa8ee9aed757dd85e1e6f with merge 394b433d1b670f0bf2f0d876a42390d2f07474a4... |
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Queued 394b433d1b670f0bf2f0d876a42390d2f07474a4 with parent e6d2de9, future comparison URL. |
Finished benchmarking commit (394b433d1b670f0bf2f0d876a42390d2f07474a4): comparison url. Summary: This change led to large relevant improvements 🎉 in compiler performance.
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR led to changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never |
Some slight doc instructions improvements, and the cleanup is good anyway. The improvements reported in the summary are just deep-vector being spurious as usual. |
9e8cd4f
to
d5b49c0
Compare
|
||
// @has 'foo/struct.Foo.html' | ||
// @has - '//*[@id="method.len"]' 'pub fn len(&self) -> usize' | ||
// @!has - '//*[@id="method.len"]//span[@class="since"]' '1.0.0' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, shouldn't stability be shown? Or I guess it depends on when the Deref impl was added too.
Weirdly, https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/string/struct.String.html#deref-methods-str shows regular and const stability, but https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/path/struct.PathBuf.html#deref-methods-Path shows neither. Something fishy's going on with re-exports, since https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/alloc/string/struct.String.html#deref-methods-str shows stability for some methods but not all and is missing many methods that the std version has. (I think I opened an issue for part of this at some point.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since you already opened the issue, I'll mark this discussion as resolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, the issue I opened was just about how different methods were shown between std and alloc. But I guess this bug is unrelated to this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought 1.0.0
without the const version is hidden. Maybe that's why? If there is a stable const version, then we show 1.0.0 (const: 1.xx.0)
or const: unstable
.
034afd4
to
e5aadd2
Compare
Updated! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
e5aadd2
to
02782bb
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 02782bb has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (d9baa36): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
Fixes #90855 (more information in the issue).
r? @camelid