Refactor and adjust non_ascii_idents lints.#72069
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
r? @Manishearth |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
634b66b to
649a579
Compare
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
649a579 to
98c4109
Compare
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
It seems |
98c4109 to
ae4c778
Compare
ae4c778 to
1dd5779
Compare
|
Is this ready to be r+-ed? Also cc @petrochenkov and @Mark-Simulacrum in case they want to have another look. The TL;DR is that since we can skip pure-ascii codebases now, this should no longer have compilation performance regression any more(other than a FxHashMap -> BTreeMap switch), and now i've turned on |
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue I want to just check that we're correct that this is not a performance regression. I've not reviewed the code in any detail. |
|
Awaiting bors try build completion |
|
⌛ Trying commit 1dd5779cd561d16782839c1b2ae98b08a6f953de with merge 54ca6faced00c0770b52ac83b46739e6b848975b... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
|
Mmm, the try bot seems unable to checkout the source code. What does this mean... cc @Mark-Simulacrum |
|
Hm seems spurious, let's @bors retry |
|
⌛ Trying commit 1dd5779cd561d16782839c1b2ae98b08a6f953de with merge aac49fd2f8e21d595802bc204841ec02b0505f7e... |
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions, checks-azure |
|
Queued aac49fd2f8e21d595802bc204841ec02b0505f7e with parent 750db09, future comparison URL. |
|
Finished benchmarking try commit aac49fd2f8e21d595802bc204841ec02b0505f7e, comparison URL. |
|
Seems good enough to me. However some more modifications to rust-lang/rfcs#2923 modification PR is being discussed, i think let's wait a bit. |
|
Fwiw I don't think we need to immediately update the RFC. The RFC typically doesn't even need to be updated in cases like this. |
|
Oh, I see what you mean |
1dd5779 to
ef24faf
Compare
…=Manishearth Implement mixed script confusable lint. This implements the mixed script confusable lint defined in RFC 2457. This is blocked on rust-lang#72069 and unicode-rs/unicode-security#13, and will need a Cargo.toml version bump after those are resolved. The lint message warning is sub-optimal for now. We'll need a mechanism to properly output `AugmentScriptSet` to screen, this is to be added in `unicode-security` crate. r? @Manishearth
…=Manishearth Implement mixed script confusable lint. This implements the mixed script confusable lint defined in RFC 2457. This is blocked on rust-lang#72069 and unicode-rs/unicode-security#13, and will need a Cargo.toml version bump after those are resolved. The lint message warning is sub-optimal for now. We'll need a mechanism to properly output `AugmentScriptSet` to screen, this is to be added in `unicode-security` crate. r? @Manishearth
…=Manishearth Implement mixed script confusable lint. This implements the mixed script confusable lint defined in RFC 2457. This is blocked on rust-lang#72069 and unicode-rs/unicode-security#13, and will need a Cargo.toml version bump after those are resolved. The lint message warning is sub-optimal for now. We'll need a mechanism to properly output `AugmentScriptSet` to screen, this is to be added in `unicode-security` crate. r? @Manishearth
The adjustment is according to rust-lang/rfcs#2923 . This also turned on confusable_idents lint, since the performance impact is resolved by this adjustment.