-
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
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation #97665
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Can the PR description be updated with links to the RFC and/or tracking issue? (Ideally the title should also be representative, but that's not as big of a deal) |
Done |
I won't get to this before 2022-06-13 (in 10 days). |
No worries, take your time. Thanks |
Thank you for the review. I tried to address as many concerns as possible. |
f3163a0
to
1c2c236
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 1c2c236 has been approved by |
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838 Third step of rust-lang#96496 Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` already do. r? `@oli-obk`
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838 Third step of rust-lang#96496 Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` already do. r? ``@oli-obk``
failed in rollup |
@bors r- |
@bors r=oli-obk |
📌 Commit 605c64a has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 605c64a with merge 021f781df9f25e2a55fe359d1872a991e8b58b8a... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
WTF... Probably not related |
yep it's spurious @bors retry |
Thanks |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (ca98305): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression Footnotes |
[RFC 2011] Expand expressions where possible Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838 Fourth step of rust-lang#96496 Extends rust-lang#97665 considering expressions that are good candidates for expansion. r? `@oli-obk`
Checked the one regression locally with cachegrind, and it turns out it's actually an improvement, so that's just some perf noise |
Tracking issue: #44838
Third step of #96496
Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what
assert_eq!
andassert_ne!
already do.r? @oli-obk