Skip to content

rustc_middle: Document which exactly DefIds don't have DefKinds #109778

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 11, 2023

Conversation

petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

I don't currently have time to investigate when and how to create these missing HIR nodes, but if someone else could do that it would be great.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 30, 2023

r? @lcnr

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 30, 2023
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Mar 31, 2023

r? @cjgillot maybe

@rustbot rustbot assigned cjgillot and unassigned lcnr Mar 31, 2023
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not convinced this is the right direction. I'd suggest the opposite: all LocalDefIds must have a DefKind, and ICEing otherwise. DefKind is one of the primary ways to examine a DefId in many places. If a LocalDefId is missing HIR, the responsible code must provide it with a DefKind some other way.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cjgillot

all LocalDefIds must have a DefKind, and ICEing otherwise ... If a LocalDefId is missing HIR, the responsible code must provide it with a DefKind some other way.

But that's exactly what my FIXME comment says.
And I added ICEs for all cases except the one with anon consts that I'm not going to fix right now.

@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

Indeed, I need to re-learn how to read...
@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 10, 2023

📌 Commit 2e21b54 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 10, 2023
Dylan-DPC added a commit to Dylan-DPC/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2023
rustc_middle: Document which exactly `DefId`s don't have `DefKind`s

I don't currently have time to investigate when and how to create these missing HIR nodes, but if someone else could do that it would be great.
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 11, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 2e21b54 with merge 5ca6e98...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 11, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing 5ca6e98 to master...

1 similar comment
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 11, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing 5ca6e98 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 11, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 5ca6e98 into rust-lang:master Apr 11, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.70.0 milestone Apr 11, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (5ca6e98): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 1

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.0% [2.0%, 4.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 1

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.7% [0.5%, 1.1%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [0.5%, 1.1%] 3

@petrochenkov petrochenkov deleted the allkind branch February 22, 2025 18:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants