Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fix rustdoc duplicated blanket impls - #96091
Conversation
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 15, 2022
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
rust-timer
commented
Apr 15, 2022
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
bors
commented
Apr 15, 2022
⌛ Trying commit 0ef6967560e9c07aa81ddcda731e16eb8e5db8ed with merge 423efbc30a40067e7710e64b2381817f976e764c... |
I don't actually know that this works, but can't you use a Unrelated, but it would be nice to use the stabilized |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 15, 2022
Unfortunately, no. The For the fun fact: I also thought the same as you first. The tests disagreed strongly. 😆 |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
notriddle
commented
Apr 15, 2022
Overall the approach is okay to me. It's just nitpicking about specifics: why so much of the moral equivalent of |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 15, 2022
It's not that I don't want |
bors
commented
Apr 15, 2022
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Apr 15, 2022
Queued 423efbc30a40067e7710e64b2381817f976e764c with parent 1e6fe58, future comparison URL. |
0ef6967 to
26e905bCompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 15, 2022
Applied @notriddle's suggestions. :) |
Fixesrust-lang#96036 This is a different approach than rust-lang#96091, an approach that should have less performance impact.
rust-timer
commented
Apr 16, 2022
Finished benchmarking commit (423efbc30a40067e7710e64b2381817f976e764c): comparison url. Summary:
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 may lead to changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never Footnotes |
notriddle
commented
Apr 16, 2022
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Apr 16, 2022
📌 Commit 26e905b9f2c8fd76a4e3e885c37fcf6a8acd8632 has been approved by |
…id, r=notriddle rustdoc: Rename `def_id` into `item_id` when the type is `ItemId` for readability As `@notriddle` mentioned in rust-lang#96091, the field name is inaccurate. This PR fixes it by renaming it accordingly to its real type. r? `@notriddle`
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2022
⌛ Testing commit 26e905b9f2c8fd76a4e3e885c37fcf6a8acd8632 with merge bccc58c250e6d7f5676aca060726ba12e64c969e... |
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2022
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 17, 2022
Needs to be rebased. |
26e905b to
6d10fd0Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 17, 2022
@bors r=notriddle |
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2022
📌 Commit 6d10fd0 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2022
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2022
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Apr 17, 2022
Finished benchmarking commit (ad4e98e): comparison url. Summary:
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Footnotes |
pnkfelix
commented
Apr 21, 2022
Visiting for weekly performance triage.
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
Fixes#96036.
I think it'll not be great performance-wise but I couldn't find another way to prevent that unfortunately...
r? @notriddle