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

remove the unstable core::sync::atomic::ATOMIC_*_INIT constants #105571

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 21, 2023
Merged

remove the unstable core::sync::atomic::ATOMIC_*_INIT constants #105571

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 21, 2023

Conversation

kadiwa4
Copy link
Contributor

@kadiwa4 kadiwa4 commented Dec 11, 2022

Tracking issue: #99069

It would be weird to ever stabilise these as they are already deprecated.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 11, 2022

r? @joshtriplett

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@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 11, 2022
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 11, 2022

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

  • Stabilizing library features
  • Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
  • Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
  • Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
  • Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

@kadiwa4 kadiwa4 force-pushed the remove_atomic_init_consts branch from 0115e48 to d455057 Compare December 11, 2022 21:13
@kadiwa4
Copy link
Contributor Author

kadiwa4 commented Dec 11, 2022

@rustbot label: +T-libs-api -T-libs +A-atomic

@rustbot rustbot added A-atomic Area: Atomics, barriers, and sync primitives T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 11, 2022
kadiwa4
kadiwa4 commented Feb 26, 2023
View reviewed changes
library/core/tests/lib.rs
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
#![feature(const_option)]
#![feature(const_option_ext)]
#![feature(const_result)]
#![feature(integer_atomics)]
#![cfg_attr(target_has_atomic = "128", feature(integer_atomics))]
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that the feature now only exists if cfg(target_has_atomic = "128").

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Apr 26, 2023

ping @joshtriplett - this has been waiting on review for a while

@Amanieu
Copy link
Member

Amanieu commented Jul 18, 2023

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2023

📌 Commit d4550578668dbdf50a9e628ed72bdc20fa06a6f5 has been approved by Amanieu

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 Jul 18, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2023

⌛ Testing commit d4550578668dbdf50a9e628ed72bdc20fa06a6f5 with merge 5d230c757ed675162bde2e6cccbc20ee1b9eaad1...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2023

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jul 18, 2023
@kadiwa4 kadiwa4 force-pushed the remove_atomic_init_consts branch from d455057 to c3462a0 Compare July 18, 2023 07:47
@Amanieu
Copy link
Member

Amanieu commented Jul 20, 2023

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 20, 2023

📌 Commit c3462a0 has been approved by Amanieu

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 Jul 20, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 21, 2023

⌛ Testing commit c3462a0 with merge d26f0b7...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 21, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Amanieu
Pushing d26f0b7 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 21, 2023
@bors bors merged commit d26f0b7 into rust-lang:master Jul 21, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.73.0 milestone Jul 21, 2023
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2023
Merged
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d26f0b7): 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

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)		 2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.3% [-3.1%, -0.4%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.3% [-3.1%, -0.4%] 3

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -4.9% [-4.9%, -4.9%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 649.563s -> 650.755s (0.18%)

@kadiwa4 kadiwa4 deleted the remove_atomic_init_consts branch August 20, 2023 10:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@joshtriplett joshtriplett

Labels
A-atomic Area: Atomics, barriers, and sync primitives 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-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.73.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@kadiwa4 @rustbot @jyn514 @Amanieu @bors @rust-log-analyzer @rust-timer @joshtriplett