refactor rustc_hir_typeck/src/op.rs#154223
Conversation
|
r? @adwinwhite rustbot has assigned @adwinwhite. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
60bad65 to
f803f56
Compare
|
This is a fairly large PR -- could you help reviewers by adding some context to the description? It would be great to have a summary of what was changed, the key decisions made and the reasoning behind them, and ideally a breakdown into separate commits to make it easier to review piece by piece. |
|
Updated the description. There weren't really any key decisions to make since this is a refactor with no behaviour changes. As for separate commits, splitting style changes after the fact would be tedious and I'm not sure it would add much value for reviewers. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@malezjaa I'm really sorry that I didn't get to this quickly. Thank you for trying to clean this up. |
|
I am also sorry for closing this so quickly. I’ll try to resolve these merge conflicts as soon as I can. |
f803f56 to
572d1dc
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
|
@rustbot author |
|
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
|
@rustbot ready |
|
Did you forget to push? |
|
Sorry for the confusion 😅, but the only change I made after reopening was the rebase to fix merge conflicts. I also updated the PR description a while back when it was requested. Is there something I should be pushing? I don't see any review comments. |
|
|
|
one of possibilities is that you didn't pressed "submit review" green button or whatever it called |
|
I'll squash the commits after review |
|
@rustbot ready |
|
r=me after squashing @bors delegate+ |
|
✌️ @malezjaa, you can now approve this pull request! If @adwinwhite told you to " |
85f5b8a to
118edea
Compare
|
@bors r=adwinwhite |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
What is this?This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.Comparing 1948ee1 (parent) -> 4c42051 (this PR) Test differencesShow 3 test diffs3 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy. Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 4c4205163abcbd08948b3efab796c543ba1ea687 --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
| self.apply_adjustments(lhs_expr, vec![autoref]); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| if by_ref_binop { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This condition seems to have been lost.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I merged it with the above if without thinking. I'll open a follow up pr. Sorry about that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No problem. I'm surprised though that this was not caught by a test; although I'm not really sure what the effect of this is either...
|
Finished benchmarking commit (4c42051): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 3.0%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (primary 2.4%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 490.984s -> 489.441s (-0.31%) |
…adwinwhite Fix if branch in op.rs I removed the if guard without thinking in rust-lang#154223. Really sorry about this. r? @hkBst
…adwinwhite Fix if branch in op.rs I removed the if guard without thinking in rust-lang#154223. Really sorry about this. r? @hkBst
View all comments
Fixes #64297
This is a refactoring PR with no logic or behaviour changes. I tried to improve readability of op.rs, which had a few very large functions using some suboptimal syntax. I broke these up into smaller helpers.