inline format!() args

[matthiaskrgr]

See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Opening.20.60E-easy.60.20meta.20issue.28s.29.20for.20small.20tweaks.3F

Edit: this is not complete yet because clippy hans at some point, I'm patching out the responsible lint and will update later

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

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

[fbstj]

Suggested change

	let w = f.precision().unwrap_or(pos);
	let width = f.precision().unwrap_or(pos);

for better legibility?

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in need_type_info.rs

cc @lcnr

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Changes rustc_apfloat. rustc_apfloat is currently in limbo and you almost certainly don't want to change it (see #55993).

cc @eddyb

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @JohnTitor, @TaKO8Ki

[saethlin]

Can you split this up into multiple PRs? There's no reason we need to land changes to every part of the codebase at the same time.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes might have occurred in exhaustiveness checking

cc @Nadrieril

This PR changes Stable MIR

cc @oli-obk, @celinval, @spastorino

[matthiaskrgr]

@saethlin what do you have in mind? one pr per crate?

Anyway I want to do a all-in-one perf run to see if this has some sneaky sideeffects.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 543feca with merge 0c93b338030414ebd7b082f1eb6b5ebae21a097d...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0c93b338030414ebd7b082f1eb6b5ebae21a097d (0c93b338030414ebd7b082f1eb6b5ebae21a097d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0c93b338030414ebd7b082f1eb6b5ebae21a097d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.9%, -0.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.8%, -0.3%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.9%, -0.8%]	4

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)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-1.2%, 2.4%]	2

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: 653.19s -> 650.692s (-0.38%)

[matthiaskrgr]

🤔 interesting

[compiler-errors]

I think apfloat changes need to be reverted?

[lcnr]

not sure if that is still the case, cc @eddyb

[lcnr]

but it does make sense to leave this out of this PR, because it at least requires a submodule? update

[WaffleLapkin]

r? WaffleLapkin

+1 to @saethlin's proposal of splitting this up.
@matthiaskrgr I think you can bundle multiple crates at a time, just making sure the diff is < 500 lines or something, so it's easier to review changes, rebase the PR when/if needed and fixup nits.

[Noratrieb]

note #105890
I don't think it's worth converting legacy translations, that will just cause conflicts.
so you should probably see which crates/modules now have the denys and only apply those.

[WaffleLapkin]

This was splitup into #114066, #114067, #114068, #114074, #114075, as such — closing.