Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
rustdoc: Remove 'need_backline' field from DocFragment - #92095
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 19, 2021
Some changes occurred in cc @camelid |
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 19, 2021
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @GuillaumeGomez (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
Just having noticed #92084, this PR may become obsolete. To clarify, lines 945-950 and 960-962 would be deleted, so the only change in the end would be to unconditionally push a newline. I suppose that "mostly obsolete" would've fit better. |
jyn514
commented
Dec 19, 2021
@vacuus here's a guide on fixing conflicts: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/git.html#rebasing-and-conflicts I'm not sure what you mean by obsolete - this is exactly the sort of change I was hoping to see when I opened the issue :) |
jyn514
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great! Could you now remove the need_backline field everywhere in types.rs? That should give a big memory improvement :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While you're rewriting these comments, can you make them doc-comments so they show up on doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
vacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
I confess that I'm stumped on the rebase. Right after cloning my fork, I did |
jyn514
commented
Dec 19, 2021
@vacuus try |
DocFragmentvacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
Sorry to bother you more, but do I just allow the changes I made? For example, this is one of the conflicts: since the goal is to remove 'need_backline`, the if let would be deleted. There shouldn't be any problem with me deleting the whole snippet and considering that conflict resolved, right? |
Yup! That whole block shouldn't be needed any more. |
camelid
commented
Dec 19, 2021
All you need to do is delete the conflict marker arrows and made sure the code that is left behind is what you want. So if you want to delete the section that has conflicts, just delete it. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
vacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
The size assertion at line 923 ( |
vacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
There seem to be quite a few compilation errors due to a |
jyn514
commented
Dec 19, 2021
Wait, why did you change that in this PR? I thought this was only changing need_backline. |
vacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
I guess I thought that #92078 was already merged and I should update this accordingly. My bad. I'll revert those changes. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
vacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
I suppose that, for alignment reasons, the size of |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
vacuus
commented
Dec 19, 2021
That seems to be a formatting issue, yet running rustfmt on the file doesn't raise any complaints. |
bors
commented
Dec 20, 2021
⌛ Testing commit 386ab1e with merge 824ed5019ca407ae81afe5bc7163faee796aae22... |
bors
commented
Dec 20, 2021
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
rust-log-analyzer
commented
Dec 20, 2021
vacuus
commented
Dec 20, 2021
Well, that's a doozy. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
matthiaskrgr
commented
Dec 20, 2021
@bors retry |
bors
commented
Dec 21, 2021
⌛ Testing commit 386ab1e with merge 9f6776cf4b2bda47d9bfa3dfc00b365b90cac7b4... |
rust-log-analyzer
commented
Dec 21, 2021
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
bors
commented
Dec 21, 2021
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
matthiaskrgr
commented
Dec 21, 2021
bors
commented
Dec 21, 2021
bors
commented
Dec 21, 2021
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Dec 22, 2021
Finished benchmarking commit (e100ec5): 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#92084