-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Implement advance_by, advance_back_by for slice::{Iter, IterMut} #87387
Conversation
Co-authored-by: The8472 <git@infinite-source.de>
Co-authored-by: Ivan Tham <pickfire@riseup.net>
r? @scottmcm (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Looks good; thanks! @bors r+ rollup=iffy |
📌 Commit 5485f8a has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Seems to have been a consistent regression on the regex-opt benchmark in particular, amongst a few others. Marking as perf-regression. Seems likely that we just accept this regression, though. |
@Mark-Simulacrum it looks like I forgot an I can do a perf run in another PR to see if it makes any difference. |
…ulacrum #[inline] slice::Iter::advance_by rust-lang#87387 (comment) was marked as a regression. One of the methods in the PR was missing an inline annotation unlike all the other methods on slice iterators. Let's see if that makes a difference.
Perf-regression was addressed by PR #87736, so removing perf-regression label. |
Part of #77404.
Picking up where #77633 was closed.
I have addressed #77633 (comment) by restoring
nth
andnth_back
. So according to that comment this should already be r=m-ou-se, but it has been sitting for a while.