Streamline register_res.

[nnethercote]

Turns out it's only ever passed a Res::Def.

r? @jyn514

[jyn514]

I think it's true that the Res stored in a Path can only ever be a Res::Def; otherwise it won't have a path.

I see some places where it's a Res::Local instead, but rustdoc doesn't look at function bodies, so those won't show up.

[jyn514]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit 0965a33 has been approved by jyn514

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[nnethercote]

I think it's true that the Res stored in a Path can only ever be a Res::Def; otherwise it won't have a path.

That's not true, a Path can contain Res::Local, Res::Err, Res::PrimTy, Res::SelfTy. This patch works because of other constraints, e.g. one of the following.

• The Res comes from a trait definition, which seems to always be Res::Def.
• A Res::Def is constructed right at the register_res call site.
• The Res comes from a type definition, and the Res::PrimTy and Res::SelfTy variants are handled separately, as is the Res::Def(DefKind::TyParam, _) case.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0965a33 with merge c3f5929...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jyn514
Pushing c3f5929 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c3f5929): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.2%	[3.3%, 7.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[2.4%, 6.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³