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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Split out option::unwrap_failed like we have result::unwrap_failed #119954

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2024
Merged

Split out option::unwrap_failed like we have result::unwrap_failed #119954

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2024

Conversation

scottmcm
Copy link
Member

...and like option::expect_failed

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 14, 2024

r? @joshtriplett

(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-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 14, 2024
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 14, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2024

⌛ Trying commit f4da345 with merge 692ec2a...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#119954 - scottmcm:option-unwrap-failed, r=<try>
692ec2a 
Split out `option::unwrap_failed` like we have `result::unwrap_failed`

...and like `option::expect_failed`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 692ec2a (692ec2a053f44992c252155a7910f1a1bce54ff3)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (692ec2a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

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
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -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)		 1.6% [1.6%, 1.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.3% [-0.4%, -0.3%] 2
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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 2.6% [2.6%, 2.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.0% [1.0%, 2.4%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -4.3% [-4.3%, -4.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.9% [-4.3%, 2.6%] 2

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)		 2.6% [2.6%, 2.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.6% [2.6%, 2.6%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 664.704s -> 666.689s (0.30%)
Artifact size: 308.20 MiB -> 308.12 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 14, 2024
@scottmcm scottmcm force-pushed the option-unwrap-failed branch from f4da345 to 2348366 Compare January 14, 2024 20:45
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 14, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 2348366 with merge c61a739...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#119954 - scottmcm:option-unwrap-failed, r=<try>
c61a739 
Split out `option::unwrap_failed` like we have `result::unwrap_failed`

...and like `option::expect_failed`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 14, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c61a739 (c61a73945463864704bd6b76010d6eb4ca5f98e4)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c61a739): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

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
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)		 3.0% [3.0%, 3.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -5.2% [-6.3%, -4.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.2% [-6.3%, 3.0%] 4

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.2% [1.3%, 2.5%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 666.665s -> 668.577s (0.29%)
Artifact size: 308.23 MiB -> 308.12 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 14, 2024
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

Since you asked about this in the other PR,
r? @WaffleLapkin

@rustbot rustbot assigned WaffleLapkin and unassigned joshtriplett Jan 15, 2024
@scottmcm scottmcm marked this pull request as ready for review January 15, 2024 02:06
@WaffleLapkin
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 15, 2024

📌 Commit 2348366 has been approved by WaffleLapkin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

@bors ping

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 15, 2024

😪 I'm awake I'm awake

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

Trying to poke bors since this isn't showing in the queue
@bors r-

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 15, 2024
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=WaffleLapkin

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 15, 2024

📌 Commit 2348366 has been approved by WaffleLapkin

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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 15, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 16, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 2348366 with merge bf2637f...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 16, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: WaffleLapkin
Pushing bf2637f to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 16, 2024
@bors bors merged commit bf2637f into rust-lang:master Jan 16, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.77.0 milestone Jan 16, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (bf2637f): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)		 7.7% [5.2%, 12.0%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 1.3% [1.3%, 1.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -5.2% [-5.2%, -5.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.7% [-4.0%, -3.5%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 5.5% [-5.2%, 12.0%] 6

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: 664.25s -> 666.444s (0.33%)
Artifact size: 308.27 MiB -> 308.25 MiB (-0.00%)

@scottmcm scottmcm deleted the option-unwrap-failed branch January 16, 2024 22:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@WaffleLapkin WaffleLapkin WaffleLapkin approved these changes

Assignees

@WaffleLapkin WaffleLapkin

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-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.77.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@scottmcm @rustbot @rust-timer @bors @WaffleLapkin @joshtriplett