Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. #119984

kpreid · 2024-01-15T03:05:37Z

The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a Context creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped.

If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like futures::task::noop_waker() and futures::task::noop_waker_ref(), but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the &'static reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate.

Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here

rustbot · 2024-01-15T03:05:45Z

r? @TaKO8Ki

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

rustbot · 2024-01-15T03:05:47Z

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

RossSmyth · 2024-01-15T14:20:38Z

If you are poking this I would bring up one comment from the previous impl that was not really addressed (understandably since it was like a year later).

Maybe make this a static such that the vtable is shared between all times RawWaker is codegened?

Instead of consts, using statics for the RawWaker and probably the Waker itself since it's a ref now may be a good idea so that they are not duplicated each time (which I think is how it would work as implemented now). This may slightly reduce compile times if used multiple times. Only downside I can think of is it would then be easily inspected to be a noop, if that even matters.

compiler-errors · 2024-01-15T16:39:21Z

r? libs-api

IDK why this was assigned to a compiler contributor.

kpreid · 2024-01-15T17:28:44Z

using statics for the RawWaker and probably the Waker itself

I'd love to do that, but unfortunately, that's prohibited unless #119618 happens:

error[E0013]: constant functions cannot refer to statics
   --> library/core/src/task/wake.rs:371:10
    |
371 |         &WAKER
    |          ^^^^^
    |
    = help: consider extracting the value of the `static` to a `const`, and referring to that

A possible alternative would be a pub static NOOP: Waker, but "error: associated static items are not allowed" either, so then it would have to be a non-associated static item, which doesn't seem worth it to me.

IDK why this was assigned to a compiler contributor.

Perhaps because I modified tests/ui/?

@rustbot label -T-compiler

dtolnay

Thank you!

dtolnay · 2024-01-15T20:46:21Z

@bors r+

bors · 2024-01-15T20:46:23Z

📌 Commit 7052188 has been approved by dtolnay

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Zalathar · 2024-01-16T01:37:07Z

tests/coverage/closure_macro_async.rs

+        $value.or_else(|e| {
+            // FIXME(85000): no coverage in closure macros


Nit: moving this comment (presumably due to rustfmt?) is what caused closure_macro_async.cov-map to churn and need re-blessing. Moving it back (and blessing again) would make the diff simpler.

However, now that this PR has been approved and is in the queue, feel free to not worry about it. It's not a big deal either way.

(There's no actual problem with moving the comment, and these things occasionally churn for all sorts of other reasons anyway.)

Ack (both senses). I tried to revert all the unrelated rustfmt changes, but I missed this one because it was comparatively short. I've fixed this and will push an updated version after running local tests and we'll see what wins.

I think I would prefer to keep what's in the PR. Reverting that rustfmt-generated change will just cause whoever is the next person to touch this file to stumble on the same thing again.

Alternatively, I would be open to reverting the rustfmt-generated change from this PR and then receiving a separate PR that applies rustfmt on all the files under tests/coverage.

I'm happy either way. If this goes through as-is, I won't even bother reverting the change, because in this case the non-standard formatting isn't load-bearing anyway.

There are some other tests/coverage tests where non-standard formatting is load-bearing (because certain things need to be split across multiple lines); I should probably go through and mark those explicitly with no-format attributes at some point.

(Is there a standard way to tell x.py to format tests that normally wouldn't be touched by x fmt, or are people just running rustfmt by hand?)

Not sure if this is relevant, but what happened in this PR is that rust-analyzer ran rustfmt for me on the files I edited.

I think I would prefer to keep what's in the PR.

Ack. Will not push.

Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped. If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate. [Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here](rust-lang#98286 (comment))

…iaskrgr Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#119062 (Deny braced macro invocations in let-else) - rust-lang#119922 (Rework how diagnostic lints are stored.) - rust-lang#119978 (Move async closure parameters into the resultant closure's future eagerly) - rust-lang#119984 (Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.) - rust-lang#120020 (Gracefully handle missing typeck information if typeck errored) - rust-lang#120021 (don't store const var origins for known vars) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped. If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate. [Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here](rust-lang#98286 (comment))

…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#119855 (Enable Static Builds for FreeBSD) - rust-lang#119922 (Rework how diagnostic lints are stored.) - rust-lang#119978 (Move async closure parameters into the resultant closure's future eagerly) - rust-lang#119984 (Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.) - rust-lang#120020 (Gracefully handle missing typeck information if typeck errored) - rust-lang#120021 (don't store const var origins for known vars) - rust-lang#120032 (Fix `rustc_abi` build on stable) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

kpreid · 2024-01-17T19:53:05Z

Oh, I understand. My local branch had the version where I had no formatting change.

Considering the non-triviality of getting this right, I'm going to continue with that plan, and keep formatting changes out of this PR, despite the previous discussion. #120015 can address that.

The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large benefit. Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here: rust-lang#98286 (comment)

`Waker::noop()` now returns a `&'static Waker` reference, so it can be passed directly to `Context` creation with no temporary lifetime issue.

kpreid · 2024-01-17T20:05:12Z

I have pushed the new "clean" version with no extraneous formatting. The original is still available if required.

@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review

Zalathar · 2024-01-17T23:37:26Z

I ran x test coverage against these changes on my machine, and everything succeeded, so hopefully you won't have any nasty surprises in CI this time.

kpreid · 2024-01-18T16:41:52Z

@matthiaskrgr The problem has been fixed and this PR is in need of an r+, if I understand correctly.

Warn when not having a profiler runtime means that coverage tests won't be run/blessed On a few occasions (e.g. rust-lang#118036, rust-lang#119984) people have been tripped up by the fact that half of the coverage test suite is skipped by default, because it `// needs-profiler-support` and the profiler runtime is not actually built in any of the default config profiles. (This is made worse by the fact that it isn't enabled in any of the PR CI jobs either. So people think that they've successfully blessed the test suite, and then get a rude surprise when their merge only fails in the full CI job suite.) This PR adds a simple warning to compiletest that should alert the user in some cases. It's not foolproof, but it should increase the chances of catching this problem earlier in the PR process.

the8472 · 2024-01-19T17:22:18Z

@bors r=dtolnay

bors · 2024-01-19T17:22:21Z

📌 Commit c48cdfe has been approved by dtolnay

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Rollup merge of rust-lang#120083 - Zalathar:no-profiler, r=wesleywiser Warn when not having a profiler runtime means that coverage tests won't be run/blessed On a few occasions (e.g. rust-lang#118036, rust-lang#119984) people have been tripped up by the fact that half of the coverage test suite is skipped by default, because it `// needs-profiler-support` and the profiler runtime is not actually built in any of the default config profiles. (This is made worse by the fact that it isn't enabled in any of the PR CI jobs either. So people think that they've successfully blessed the test suite, and then get a rude surprise when their merge only fails in the full CI job suite.) This PR adds a simple warning to compiletest that should alert the user in some cases. It's not foolproof, but it should increase the chances of catching this problem earlier in the PR process.

…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#117561 (Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`) - rust-lang#117662 ([rustdoc] Allows links in headings) - rust-lang#119815 (Format sources into the error message when loading codegen backends) - rust-lang#119835 (Exhaustiveness: simplify empty pattern logic) - rust-lang#119984 (Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.) - rust-lang#120009 (never_patterns: typecheck never patterns) - rust-lang#120122 (Don't add needs-triage to A-diagnostics) - rust-lang#120126 (Suggest `.swap()` when encountering conflicting borrows from `mem::swap` on a slice) - rust-lang#120134 (Restrict access to the private field of newtype indexes) Failed merges: - rust-lang#119968 (Remove unused/unnecessary features) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Rollup merge of rust-lang#119984 - kpreid:waker-noop, r=dtolnay Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common thing to want to do with a noop waker. It also avoids unnecessarily executing the dynamically dispatched drop function when the noop waker is dropped. If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the reverse is harder to do since it requires declaring a constant. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like `futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas having the `&'static` reference available is a large reduction in boilerplate. [Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here](rust-lang#98286 (comment))

coverage: Format all coverage tests with `rustfmt` As suggested by <rust-lang#119984 (comment)>. Test files in `tests/` are normally ignored by `x fmt`, but sometimes those files end up being run through `rustfmt` anyway, either by `rust-analyzer` or by hand. When that happens, it's annoying to have to manually revert formatting changes that are unrelated to the actual changes being made. So it's helpful for the tests in the repository to already have standard formatting beforehand. However, there are several coverage tests that deliberately use non-standard formatting, so that line counts reveal more information about where code regions begin and end. In those cases, we can use `#[rustfmt::skip]` to prevent that code from being disturbed. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage

coverage: Format all coverage tests with `rustfmt` As suggested by <rust-lang#119984 (comment)>. Test files in `tests/` are normally ignored by `x fmt`, but sometimes those files end up being run through `rustfmt` anyway, either by `rust-analyzer` or by hand. When that happens, it's annoying to have to manually revert formatting changes that are unrelated to the actual changes being made. So it's helpful for the tests in the repository to already have standard formatting beforehand. However, there are several coverage tests that deliberately use non-standard formatting, so that line counts reveal more information about where code regions begin and end. In those cases, we can use `#[rustfmt::skip]` to prevent that code from being disturbed. ``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage

Rollup merge of rust-lang#120015 - Zalathar:format, r=dtolnay coverage: Format all coverage tests with `rustfmt` As suggested by <rust-lang#119984 (comment)>. Test files in `tests/` are normally ignored by `x fmt`, but sometimes those files end up being run through `rustfmt` anyway, either by `rust-analyzer` or by hand. When that happens, it's annoying to have to manually revert formatting changes that are unrelated to the actual changes being made. So it's helpful for the tests in the repository to already have standard formatting beforehand. However, there are several coverage tests that deliberately use non-standard formatting, so that line counts reveal more information about where code regions begin and end. In those cases, we can use `#[rustfmt::skip]` to prevent that code from being disturbed. ``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage

coverage: Format all coverage tests with `rustfmt` As suggested by <rust-lang/rust#119984 (comment)>. Test files in `tests/` are normally ignored by `x fmt`, but sometimes those files end up being run through `rustfmt` anyway, either by `rust-analyzer` or by hand. When that happens, it's annoying to have to manually revert formatting changes that are unrelated to the actual changes being made. So it's helpful for the tests in the repository to already have standard formatting beforehand. However, there are several coverage tests that deliberately use non-standard formatting, so that line counts reveal more information about where code regions begin and end. In those cases, we can use `#[rustfmt::skip]` to prevent that code from being disturbed. ``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage

rustbot assigned TaKO8Ki Jan 15, 2024

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 15, 2024

rust-lang deleted a comment from rustbot Jan 15, 2024

traviscross added the WG-async Working group: Async & await label Jan 15, 2024

rustbot added the T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jan 15, 2024

rustbot assigned dtolnay and unassigned TaKO8Ki Jan 15, 2024

rustbot removed the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jan 15, 2024

kpreid force-pushed the waker-noop branch from f18bf79 to 7052188 Compare January 15, 2024 17:40

traviscross mentioned this pull request Jan 15, 2024

Tracking Issue for task::Waker::noop #98286

Open

3 tasks

dtolnay approved these changes Jan 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

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 Jan 15, 2024

Zalathar reviewed Jan 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2024

coverage: Format all coverage tests with rustfmt #120015

Merged

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2024

Rollup of 6 pull requests #120030

Closed

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2024

Rollup of 7 pull requests #120034

Closed

bors added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Jan 17, 2024

kpreid added 2 commits January 17, 2024 11:53

Remove unnecessary lets and borrowing from Waker::noop() usage.

c48cdfe

`Waker::noop()` now returns a `&'static Waker` reference, so it can be passed directly to `Context` creation with no temporary lifetime issue.

kpreid force-pushed the waker-noop branch from 7052188 to c48cdfe Compare January 17, 2024 20:03

rustbot 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 Jan 17, 2024

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2024

Warn when not having a profiler runtime means that coverage tests won't be run/blessed #120083

Merged

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 Jan 19, 2024

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2024

Rollup of 9 pull requests #120136

Merged

bors merged commit 455382d into rust-lang:master Jan 20, 2024
11 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.77.0 milestone Jan 20, 2024

kpreid deleted the waker-noop branch January 20, 2024 16:37

RalfJung mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2024

Replace unstable Waker::noop() with Waker::NOOP. #122924

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. #119984

Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. #119984

kpreid commented Jan 15, 2024

rustbot commented Jan 15, 2024

rustbot commented Jan 15, 2024

RossSmyth commented Jan 15, 2024

compiler-errors commented Jan 15, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 15, 2024

dtolnay left a comment

dtolnay commented Jan 15, 2024

bors commented Jan 15, 2024

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

kpreid Jan 16, 2024

dtolnay Jan 16, 2024

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

kpreid Jan 16, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 17, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 17, 2024

Zalathar commented Jan 17, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 18, 2024

the8472 commented Jan 19, 2024

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

		$value.or_else(\|e\| {
		// FIXME(85000): no coverage in closure macros

Change return type of unstable Waker::noop() from Waker to &Waker. #119984

Change return type of unstable Waker::noop() from Waker to &Waker. #119984

Conversation

kpreid commented Jan 15, 2024

rustbot commented Jan 15, 2024

rustbot commented Jan 15, 2024

RossSmyth commented Jan 15, 2024

compiler-errors commented Jan 15, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 15, 2024

dtolnay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtolnay commented Jan 15, 2024

bors commented Jan 15, 2024

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kpreid Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtolnay Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zalathar Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kpreid Jan 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kpreid commented Jan 17, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 17, 2024

Zalathar commented Jan 17, 2024

kpreid commented Jan 18, 2024

the8472 commented Jan 19, 2024

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. #119984

Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`. #119984