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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

stabilize int_error_matching #84910

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 22, 2021
Merged

stabilize int_error_matching #84910

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 22, 2021

Conversation

eopb
Copy link
Contributor

@eopb eopb commented May 4, 2021 •
edited
Loading

closes #22639

It has been over half a year since #77640 (review), and the indexing question is rejected in #79728 (review), so I guess we can submit another stabilization attempt? 😉

Originally posted by @kennytm in #22639 (comment)

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 4, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 4, 2021
@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member

Posted one comment about not stabilizing __description. Other than that, this looks good to me.

@kennytm kennytm added the needs-rfc This change is large or controversial enough that it should have an RFC accepted before doing it. label May 5, 2021
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added needs-fcp This change is insta-stable, so needs a completed FCP to proceed. and removed needs-rfc This change is large or controversial enough that it should have an RFC accepted before doing it. labels May 6, 2021
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

r? @joshtriplett for the T-libs FCP and since you've already started a review here

@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member

@rfcbot merge

@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented May 6, 2021 •
edited by yaahc
Loading

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. labels May 6, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 7, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #85014) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@eopb eopb force-pushed the stabilize_int_error_matching branch from 1fa0d8b to 7b6573c Compare May 7, 2021 08:26
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@eopb

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 8, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #85058) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor

You're going to hate me, but I got a snag. https://godbolt.org/z/fPx6ThTYx
It seems that the performance difference between one and two enum arms is very different for u128s. One arm takes 1.7ns but two arms takes 4.7ns.

I would love to understand what's going on because the error is clearly smaller than a u128 even with a fair few enum varients. I don't know why llvm would generate different assembly. I take it mov is much slower than an xor but why llvm why?

@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor

(I know worrying about 3ms when the largest i128 currently takes 300ns to parse seems pedantic but I'm working on getting parsing 128s to below 20ns worstcase so it's becoming not insignificant.)

@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm, seems like our side looking at the generated llvm instructions, but I'm not great at reading the runes.

@rfcbot rfcbot added the final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. label May 13, 2021
@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented May 13, 2021

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented May 23, 2021

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

The RFC will be merged soon.

@rfcbot rfcbot added to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting and removed final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. labels May 23, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 25, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #84985) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@eopb eopb force-pushed the stabilize_int_error_matching branch from 7eb3b38 to 62e6b8f Compare May 25, 2021 09:43
@apiraino apiraino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label May 27, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 11, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #86204) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@eopb eopb force-pushed the stabilize_int_error_matching branch from 62e6b8f to 85b06e9 Compare June 14, 2021 08:59
@eopb
Copy link
Contributor Author

eopb commented Jun 14, 2021

This should be ready for merge. @joshtriplett Do you need to do something to merge this?

@yaahc
Copy link
Member

yaahc commented Jun 21, 2021

This should be ready for merge. @joshtriplett Do you need to do something to merge this?

I think we only need to update the version field in the stable attributes to 1.55 instead of 1.54, then I can go ahead and approve the PR.

@kennytm kennytm added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 22, 2021
@kennytm kennytm added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jun 22, 2021
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Jun 22, 2021

@bors r=yaahc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 22, 2021

📌 Commit 52a6885 has been approved by yaahc

@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 Jun 22, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 22, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 52a6885 with merge 75ed342...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 22, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: yaahc
Pushing 75ed342 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 22, 2021
@bors bors merged commit 75ed342 into rust-lang:master Jun 22, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.55.0 milestone Jun 22, 2021
@eopb eopb deleted the stabilize_int_error_matching branch June 22, 2021 16:12
@pthariensflame
Copy link
Contributor

@XAMPPRocky This seems to have been missed in relnotes?

@XAMPPRocky
Copy link
Member

@pthariensflame Thanks for the catch! Would you be able to open up a PR or issue for this and the couple of others you caught? I can't get to it immediately, and I want to make sure it doesn't get lost.

@pthariensflame
Copy link
Contributor

Will do, later today!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@LingMan LingMan LingMan left review comments

@dtolnay dtolnay dtolnay left review comments

@gilescope gilescope gilescope left review comments

@joshtriplett joshtriplett joshtriplett left review comments

Assignees

@joshtriplett joshtriplett

Labels
disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. needs-fcp This change is insta-stable, so needs a completed FCP to proceed. relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.55.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ParseIntError and ParseFloatError does not allow to introspect the cause