Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Rollup of 9 pull requests - #70169
Closed
Dylan-DPC-zz wants to merge 32 commits into
Closed
Conversation
This simplifies the node manipulation, as we can (in later commits) always know when traversing nodes that we are not in a shared root.
We no longer have a separate header because the shared root is gone; all code can work solely with leafs now.
This makes ensure_root_is_owned return a reference to the (now guaranteed to exist) root, allowing callers to operate on it without going through another unwrap. Unfortunately this is only rarely useful as it's frequently the case that both the length and the root need to be accessed and field-level borrows in methods don't yet exist.
Fixesrust-lang#55099 The minimized reproducer in issue rust-lang#55099 now compiles successfully. This commit adds a regression test for it.
patch is required to avoid compiler errors by building src/libpanic_unwind/hermit.rs
As discussed on reddit, this commit addresses two issues with the documentation of `mem::forget()`: * The documentation of `mem::forget()` can confuse the reader because of the discrepancy between usage examples that show correct usage and the accompanying text which speaks of the possibility of double-free. The text that says "if the panic occurs before `mem::forget` was called" refers to a variant of the second example that was never shown, modified to use `mem::forget` instead of `ManuallyDrop`. Ideally the documentation should show both variants, so it's clear what it's talking about. Also, the double free could be fixed just by placing `mem::forget(v)` before the construction of `s`. Since the lifetimes of `s` and `v` wouldn't overlap, there would be no point where panic could cause a double free. This could be mentioned, and contrasted against the more robust fix of using `ManuallyDrop`. * This sentence seems unjustified: "For some types, operations such as passing ownership (to a funcion like `mem::forget`) requires them to actually be fully owned right now [...]". Unlike C++, Rust has no move constructors, its moves are (possibly elided) bitwise copies. Even if you pass an invalid object to `mem::forget`, no harm should come to pass because `mem::forget` consumes the object and exists solely to prevent drop, so there no one left to observe the invalid state state.
…m::forget. As pointed out by Ralf Jung, dangling references and boxes are undefined behavior as per https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html and the Miri checker.
Co-Authored-By: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
Co-Authored-By: lzutao <taolzu@gmail.com>
…sper Prefetch some queries used by the metadata encoder This brings the time for `metadata encoding and writing` for `syntex_syntax` from 1.338s to 0.997s with 6 threads in non-incremental debug mode. r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Clarify the relationship between `forget()` and `ManuallyDrop`. As discussed on reddit, this commit addresses two issues with the documentation of `mem::forget()`: * The documentation of `mem::forget()` can confuse the reader because of the discrepancy between usage examples that show correct usage and the accompanying text which speaks of the possibility of double-free. The text that says "if the panic occurs before `mem::forget` was called" refers to a variant of the second example that was never shown, modified to use `mem::forget` instead of `ManuallyDrop`. Ideally the documentation should show both variants, so it's clear what it's talking about. Also, the double free could be fixed just by placing `mem::forget(v)` before the construction of `s`. Since the lifetimes of `s` and `v` wouldn't overlap, there would be no point where panic could cause a double free. This could be mentioned, and contrasted against the more robust fix of using `ManuallyDrop`. * This sentence seems unjustified: "For some types, operations such as passing ownership (to a funcion like `mem::forget`) requires them to actually be fully owned right now [...]". Unlike C++, Rust has no move constructors, its moves are (possibly elided) bitwise copies. Even if you pass an invalid object to `mem::forget`, no harm should come to pass because `mem::forget` consumes the object and exists solely to prevent drop, so there no one left to observe the invalid state state.
…an-DPC Clean up E0437 explanation r? @Dylan-DPC
…cuviper BTreeMap: remove shared root This replaces the shared root with `Option`s in the BTreeMap code, and then slightly cleans up the node manipulation code taking advantage of the removal of the shared root. I expect that further simplification is possible, but wanted to get this posted for initial review. Note that `BTreeMap::new()` continues to not allocate. Benchmarks seem within the margin of error/unaffected, as expected for an entirely predictable branch. ``` name alloc-bench-a ns/iter alloc-bench-b ns/iter diff ns/iter diff % speedup btree::map::iter_mut_20 20 21 1 5.00% x 0.95 btree::set::clone_100 1,360 1,439 79 5.81% x 0.95 btree::set::clone_100_and_into_iter 1,319 1,434 115 8.72% x 0.92 btree::set::clone_10k 143,515 150,991 7,476 5.21% x 0.95 btree::set::clone_10k_and_clear 142,792 152,916 10,124 7.09% x 0.93 btree::set::clone_10k_and_into_iter 146,019 154,561 8,542 5.85% x 0.94 ```
…ikomatsakis Add regression test for TAIT lifetime inference (issue rust-lang#55099) Fixesrust-lang#55099 The minimized reproducer in issue rust-lang#55099 now compiles successfully. This commit adds a regression test for it.
…atsakis remove unused imports patch is required to avoid compiler errors by building src/libpanic_unwind/hermit.rs
doc: Add quote to .init_array The current formatting is not good without quotes: 
…an-DPC Clean up e0438 explanation r? @Dylan-DPC
…rk-Simulacrum triagebot.toml: accept cleanup-crew r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Dylan-DPC-zz
commented
Mar 19, 2020
Author
@bors r+ p=9 rollup=never |
bors
commented
Mar 19, 2020
Collaborator
📌 Commit 44fdd5a has been approved by |
bors
commented
Mar 20, 2020
Collaborator
⌛ Testing commit 44fdd5a with merge 03eb808417bb303306b789f1790246d970e17bef... |
bors
commented
Mar 20, 2020
Collaborator
💔 Test failed - checks-azure |
JohnTitor
commented
Mar 20, 2020
Member
Left a comment, closing. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
12 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
forget()andManuallyDrop. #69618 (Clarify the relationship betweenforget()andManuallyDrop.)Failed merges:
r? @ghost