Enforce "joined()" and "joined_with_noop()" test#101826
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Sep 18, 2022
Merged
Enforce "joined()" and "joined_with_noop()" test#101826bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
|
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
6280216 to
4279bd5
Compare
Member
|
I'd need to look at the MIR or similar to know for sure, but my guess is we end up with a drop flag or something like it to keep track of whether the Box is dropped during the noop call? Not sure. Might be that we have a dedicated optimization for instantly awaiting a different future that stops triggering. You might have more success asking on Zulip about that kind of question. This seems reasonable to me though. @bors r+ |
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 17, 2022
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#101093 (Initial version of 1.64 release notes) - rust-lang#101713 (change AccessLevels representation) - rust-lang#101821 (Bump Unicode to version 15.0.0, regenerate tables) - rust-lang#101826 (Enforce "joined()" and "joined_with_noop()" test) - rust-lang#101835 (Allow using vendoring when running bootstrap from outside the source root) - rust-lang#101942 (Revert "Copy stage0 binaries into stage0-sysroot") - rust-lang#101943 (rustdoc: remove unused CSS `.non-exhaustive { margin-bottom }`) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Several similar tests come in the form of
joined()andjoined_with_noop(). In this test, thejoined()has two calls to a noop, making it functionally equivalent tojoined_with_noop(). This doesn't seem intended, and this PR removes those calls and changes the memory size to reflect the changeFor my education, why do tests with
noop()calls sometimes havenoop()contributing to the size, while others do not? E.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-fn-size-moved-locals.rs#L115 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-fn-size-moved-locals.rs#L116 have no size difference, whereas https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-fn-size-moved-locals.rs#L113 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-fn-size-moved-locals.rs#L114 have a size difference. Thank you!