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 6 pull requests #135678

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jan 18, 2025
Merged

Rollup of 6 pull requests #135678

merged 12 commits into from
Jan 18, 2025

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

lcnr and others added 12 commits December 20, 2024 09:59
This makes tidy warn on the presence of any directives it does not recognize.

There are changes in compiletest because that file used "tidy-alphabet" instead of "tidy-alphabetical".
for now, only builtin `Sized` impls are tracked as being `Trivial`
…ompiler-errors

cleanup promoteds move check

r? types
…ozkan

Make tidy warn on unrecognized directives

This PR makes it so tidy warns on unrecognized directives, as recommended on [the discussion of rust-lang#130984](rust-lang#130984 (comment)). This is edited from the previous version of this PR, which only warned on "tidy-ignore" and no other tidy directive typos.

Fixes rust-lang#130984.

``@rustbot`` label A-tidy C-enhancement
…rash, r=oli-obk

Remove unnecessary assertion for reference error

Fixes rust-lang#135341

From comment: rust-lang#135341 (comment)

r? ``@oli-obk``
new solver: prefer trivial builtin impls

As discussed [on zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/364551-t-types.2Ftrait-system-refactor/topic/needs_help.3A.20trivial.20builtin.20impls), this PR:
- adds a new `BuiltinImplSource::Trivial` source, and marks the `Sized` builtin impls as trivial
- prefers these trivial builtin impls in `merge_trait_candidates`

The comments can likely be wordsmithed a bit better, and I ~stole~ was inspired by the old solver ones. Let me know how you want them improved.

When enabling the new solver for tests, 3 UI tests now pass:
- `regions/issue-26448-1.rs` and its sibling `regions/issue-26448-2.rs` were rejected by the new solver but accepted by the old one
- and `issues/issue-42796.rs` where the old solver emitted some overflow errors in addition to the expected error

(For some reason one of these tests is run-pass, but I can take care of that another day)

r? lcnr
…nur-ozkan

add src/librustdoc and src/rustdoc-json-types to RUSTC_IF_UNCHANGED_ALLOWED_PATHS

fixes rust-lang#135650

r? ``@onur-ozkan``
@rustbot rustbot added A-compiletest Area: The compiletest test runner A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc A-tidy Area: The tidy tool 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. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jan 18, 2025
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=6

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 18, 2025

📌 Commit e873695 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 18, 2025

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

@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 Jan 18, 2025
@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jan 18, 2025

matthias: the fuchsia fix #135675 should land in a couple hours, if you're online then, that should unblock CI and the tree can be reopened (I believe that I will not be online then, but can keep an eye on it from my phone 😅 )

@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

yeh I saw that, can take care of reopening the tree :)

@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors treeclosed-

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 18, 2025

⌛ Testing commit e873695 with merge 8321f00...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 18, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing 8321f00 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 18, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 8321f00 into rust-lang:master Jan 18, 2025
7 checks passed
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#134455 cleanup promoteds move check 6a29d71c935aebf17ae159c29ef99dce9810f176 (link)
#135421 Make tidy warn on unrecognized directives 7420233c41829e867294019760066fe72be9d451 (link)
#135611 Remove unnecessary assertion for reference error 5e6bb43be1cbe1de97b93f49d87697ffb10149e6 (link)
#135620 ci: improve github action name 02c18989ff272b23983e7f259fcb100f1b6fbb79 (link)
#135639 new solver: prefer trivial builtin impls 717042d47bd4e29a44e39b7c9ecd872afd37b4cc (link)
#135654 add src/librustdoc and src/rustdoc-json-types to RUSTC_IF_U… cfa34a4ade834d6aafa1b4f058893ef32b18904b (link)

previous master: bd62a452f4

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

@bors bors mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (8321f00): 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 (primary -2.5%, secondary -1.9%)

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.9% [-1.9%, -1.9%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.1%)

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)
3.5% [2.2%, 5.4%] 13
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 764.994s -> 763.514s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 326.06 MiB -> 326.04 MiB (-0.01%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-compiletest Area: The compiletest test runner A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc A-tidy Area: The tidy tool 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. 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.

10 participants