[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation#97665
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Can the PR description be updated with links to the RFC and/or tracking issue? (Ideally the title should also be representative, but that's not as big of a deal) |
Done |
|
I won't get to this before 2022-06-13 (in 10 days). |
No worries, take your time. Thanks |
|
Thank you for the review. I tried to address as many concerns as possible. |
f3163a0 to
1c2c236
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 1c2c236 has been approved by |
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838 Third step of rust-lang#96496 Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` already do. r? `@oli-obk`
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838 Third step of rust-lang#96496 Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` already do. r? ``@oli-obk``
|
failed in rollup |
|
@bors r- |
|
@bors r=oli-obk |
|
📌 Commit 605c64a has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 605c64a with merge 021f781df9f25e2a55fe359d1872a991e8b58b8a... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
WTF... Probably not related |
|
yep it's spurious @bors retry |
|
Thanks |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (ca98305): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression Footnotes |
[RFC 2011] Expand expressions where possible Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838 Fourth step of rust-lang#96496 Extends rust-lang#97665 considering expressions that are good candidates for expansion. r? `@oli-obk`
|
Checked the one regression locally with cachegrind, and it turns out it's actually an improvement, so that's just some perf noise |
Tracking issue: #44838
Third step of #96496
Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what
assert_eq!andassert_ne!already do.r? @oli-obk