Skip to content

Conversation

nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Turns out it's only ever passed a Res::Def.

r? @jyn514

Turns out it's only ever passed a `Res::Def`.
@rustbot rustbot added the T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Sep 14, 2022
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Sep 14, 2022
@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Sep 14, 2022

I think it's true that the Res stored in a Path can only ever be a Res::Def; otherwise it won't have a path.

I see some places where it's a Res::Local instead, but rustdoc doesn't look at function bodies, so those won't show up.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Sep 14, 2022

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 14, 2022

📌 Commit 0965a33 has been approved by jyn514

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@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 Sep 14, 2022
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

nnethercote commented Sep 14, 2022

I think it's true that the Res stored in a Path can only ever be a Res::Def; otherwise it won't have a path.

That's not true, a Path can contain Res::Local, Res::Err, Res::PrimTy, Res::SelfTy. This patch works because of other constraints, e.g. one of the following.

  • The Res comes from a trait definition, which seems to always be Res::Def.
  • A Res::Def is constructed right at the register_res call site.
  • The Res comes from a type definition, and the Res::PrimTy and Res::SelfTy variants are handled separately, as is the Res::Def(DefKind::TyParam, _) case.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 15, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 0965a33 with merge c3f5929...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 15, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jyn514
Pushing c3f5929 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 15, 2022
@bors bors merged commit c3f5929 into rust-lang:master Sep 15, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.65.0 milestone Sep 15, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c3f5929): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
5.2% [3.3%, 7.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results

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.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
3.4% [3.4%, 3.4%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.6% [2.4%, 6.3%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.4% [3.4%, 3.4%] 1

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@nnethercote nnethercote deleted the streamline-register_res branch September 15, 2022 09:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants