Skip to content

Conversation

@GrigorenkoPV
Copy link
Contributor

@GrigorenkoPV GrigorenkoPV commented Dec 21, 2024

Tracking issue: #104642

Closes #104642

FCP completed in #104642 (comment)

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 21, 2024

r? @cuviper

rustbot has assigned @cuviper.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 21, 2024
@GrigorenkoPV
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @joshtriplett

@rustbot rustbot assigned joshtriplett and unassigned cuviper Jan 14, 2025
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added the relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. label Jan 20, 2025
@GrigorenkoPV
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should I add #[rustc_confusables("get_many_mut")] to help nightly users switch to the new name?

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Jan 22, 2025

I'm not sure about using rustc_confusables for this, but it would help to keep the feature name the same even though the method is changing, so anyone using #![feature(get_many_mut)] will trigger the stable_feature lint.

@GrigorenkoPV
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reverted the feature flag rename.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 27, 2025

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #135937) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

* Renames the methods:
	* `get_many_mut` -> `get_disjoint_mut`
	* `get_many_unchecked_mut` -> `get_disjoint_unchecked_mut`
* Does not rename the feature flag: `get_many_mut`
* Marks the feature as stable
* Renames some helper stuff:
	* `GetManyMutError` -> `GetDisjointMutError`
	* `GetManyMutIndex` -> `GetDisjointMutIndex`
	* `get_many_mut_helpers` -> `get_disjoint_mut_helpers`
	* `get_many_check_valid` -> `get_disjoint_check_valid`

This only touches slice methods.
HashMap's methods and feature gates are not renamed here
(nor are they stabilized).
@GrigorenkoPV
Copy link
Contributor Author

GrigorenkoPV commented Jan 29, 2025

r? t-libs

@rustbot

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rustbot rustbot assigned ibraheemdev and unassigned joshtriplett Jan 29, 2025
@ibraheemdev
Copy link
Member

r? libs-api

@rustbot rustbot added the T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jan 31, 2025
@rustbot rustbot assigned Amanieu and unassigned ibraheemdev Jan 31, 2025
@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Feb 13, 2025

@bors r+ p=1
(we should really try to land this in the same release as HashMap)

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 13, 2025

📌 Commit 1abc853 has been approved by cuviper

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 13, 2025
@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Feb 13, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 13, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 1abc853 with merge a567209...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 13, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cuviper
Pushing a567209 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Feb 13, 2025
@bors bors merged commit a567209 into rust-lang:master Feb 13, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.86.0 milestone Feb 13, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a567209): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.6%)

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.6% [-2.6%, -2.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.6% [-2.6%, -2.6%] 1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 788.486s -> 789.427s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 347.76 MiB -> 347.75 MiB (-0.00%)

@GrigorenkoPV GrigorenkoPV deleted the get_disjoint_mut branch February 14, 2025 12:40
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. 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 Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Tracking Issue for get_disjoint_mut

9 participants