Rollup of 5 pull requests #134559
Merged
Rollup of 5 pull requests #134559
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There is a logical issue around what counts as leading white-space. There is code which does a subtraction assuming that no errors will be reported inside the leading whitespace. However we compute the length of that whitespace with std::char::is_whitespace and not rustc_lexer::is_whitespace. The former will include a no-break space while later will excluded it. We can only safely make the assumption that no errors will be reported in whitespace if it is all "Rust Standard" whitespace. Indeed an error does occur in unicode whitespace if it contains a no-break space.
During coverage instrumentation, this variable always holds the coverage graph, which is a simplified view of the MIR control-flow graph. The new name is clearer in context, and also shorter.
…avidtwco Fix logical error with what text is considered whitespace. There appears to be a logical issue around what counts as leading white-space. There is code which does a subtraction assuming that no errors will be reported inside the leading whitespace. However we compute the length of that whitespace with std::char::is_whitespace and not rustc_lexer::is_whitespace. The former will include a no-break space while later will excluded it. We can only safely make the assumption that no errors will be reported in whitespace if it is all "Rust Standard" whitespace. Indeed an error does occur in unicode whitespace if it contains a no-break space. In that case the subtraction will cause a ICE (for a compiler in debug mode) as described in rust-lang#132918.
…eyouxu Improve dependency_format a bit * Make `DependencyList` an `IndexVec` rather than emulating one using a `Vec` (which was off-by-one as LOCAL_CRATE was intentionally skipped) * Update some comments for the fact that we now use `#[global_allocator]` rather than `extern crate alloc_system;`/`extern crate alloc_jemalloc;` for specifying which allocator to use. We still use a similar mechanism for the panic runtime, so refer to the panic runtime in those comments instead. * An unrelated refactor to `create_and_enter_global_ctxt` I forgot to include in rust-lang#134302. This refactor is too small to be worth it's own PR.
…obzol ci: use ubuntu `24` instead of `latest`
coverage: Rename `basic_coverage_blocks` to just `graph` During coverage instrumentation, this variable always holds the current function's coverage graph, which is a simplified view of its MIR control-flow graph. The new name is clearer in context, and also shorter. --- This is purely a rename, so there is no functional change.
…=oli-obk add member constraints comment r? `@oli-obk` i guess
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors treeclosee=1000 Doing bors maintenance. |
|
@bors treeclose=1000 |
|
@bors treeclosed=1000 I swear I know how to use bors. |
|
@bors treeclosed- Redeploy happened, let's see if it handles this PR correctly. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134366 (Fix logical error with what text is considered whitespace.) - rust-lang#134514 (Improve dependency_format a bit) - rust-lang#134519 (ci: use ubuntu `24` instead of `latest`) - rust-lang#134551 (coverage: Rename `basic_coverage_blocks` to just `graph`) - rust-lang#134553 (add member constraints comment) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
Need to do another bors deploy, sorry! @bors treeclosed=1000 retry |
|
Deployed! @bors treeclosed- |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 8a1f8039a7 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (fcc1615): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -2.2%, secondary -5.0%)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.
CyclesResults (primary -2.4%, secondary -5.8%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 769.09s -> 767.743s (-0.18%) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
24instead oflatest#134519 (ci: use ubuntu24instead oflatest)basic_coverage_blocksto justgraph#134551 (coverage: Renamebasic_coverage_blocksto justgraph)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup