Skip to content
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

Rollup of 5 pull requests #112755

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Jun 18, 2023
Merged

Rollup of 5 pull requests #112755

merged 15 commits into from
Jun 18, 2023

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

mina86 and others added 15 commits January 24, 2023 03:04
At the moment, documentation of std::io::Write::write indicates that
call to it ‘represents at most one attempt to write to any wrapped
object’.  It seems that such wording was put there to contrast it
with pre-1.0 interface which attempted to write all the data (it has
since been changed in [RFC 517]).

However, the requirement puts unnecessary constraints and may complicate
adaptors which perform non-trivial transformations on the data.  For
example, they may maintain an internal buffer which needs to be written
out before the write method accepts more data.  It might be natural to
code the method such that it flushes the buffer and then grabs another
chunk of user data.  With the current wording in the documentation, the
adaptor would be forced to return Ok(0).

This commit softens the wording such that implementations can choose
code structure which makes most sense for their particular use case.

While at it, elaborate on the meaning of `Ok(0)` return pointing out
that the write_all methods interprets it as an error.

[RFC 517]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0517-io-os-reform.html
Co-authored-by: Andrew Gallant <jamslam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com>
It was already filtered out for emscripten, but wasi doesn't need dlmalloc
either since it reuses `unix/alloc.rs`.
io: soften ‘at most one write attempt’ requirement in io::Write::write

At the moment, documentation of std::io::Write::write indicates that
call to it ‘represents at most one attempt to write to any wrapped
object’.  It seems that such wording was put there to contrast it with
pre-1.0 interface which attempted to write all the data (it has since
been changed in [RFC 517]).

However, the requirement puts unnecessary constraints and may
complicate adaptors which perform non-trivial transformations on the
data.  For example, they may maintain an internal buffer which needs
to be written out before the write method accepts more data.  It might
be natural to code the method such that it flushes the buffer and then
grabs another chunk of user data.  With the current wording in the
documentation, the adaptor would be forced to return Ok(0).

This commit softens the wording such that implementations can choose
code structure which makes most sense for their particular use case.

While at it, elaborate on the meaning of `Ok(0)` return pointing out
that the write_all methods interprets it as an error.

[RFC 517]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0517-io-os-reform.html
… r=lcnr

Move WF/ConstEvaluatable goal to clause

It can show up in a param-env, so I think it needs to be a clause kind.

r? ```@lcnr``` or ```@oli-obk```
…lacrum

std: only depend on dlmalloc for wasm*-unknown

It was already filtered out for emscripten, but wasi doesn't need dlmalloc
either since it reuses `unix/alloc.rs`.
bootstrap: check for dry run when copying env vars for msvc

The new synthetic targets for mir-opt blessing aren't added to `builder.cc` during dry runs, causing `x.py test tests/mir-opt --bless`  to crash on MSVC when it tries to copy env vars to the C compiler invocation. This PR adds a check for dry run to fix the panic.
…compiler-errors

Make `Bound::predicates`  use `Clause`

Part of rust-lang#107250

`Bound::predicates` returns an iterator over `Binder<_, Clause>` instead of `Predicate`.

I tried updating `explicit_predicates_of` as well, but it seems that it needs a lot more change than I thought. Will do it in a separate PR instead.
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jun 18, 2023
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 18, 2023

📌 Commit 3436069 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

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 Jun 18, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 18, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 3436069 with merge 76fb0e3...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 18, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing 76fb0e3 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 18, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 76fb0e3 into rust-lang:master Jun 18, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.72.0 milestone Jun 18, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Perf Build Sha
#112734 ded256dc3a02f1d98c60f0ebeebb9afaef71f80a
#112722 8753602c6a21b61ce2acca9d047245229647feb5
#112685 decaed5852bd7f899e70ae8c791bc2adaa138919
#112667 9e71a9ac7525f1041a0674d7d5262c6459f3e117
#107200 67412a4c84192b522f47f3d6fdb6d27551031536

previous master: 0c2c243342

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (76fb0e3): 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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.8% [-1.8%, -0.2%] 16
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.8% [-1.8%, -0.2%] 16

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 656.801s -> 656.258s (-0.08%)

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-e4bhbgn branch March 16, 2024 18:19
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. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants