Closed Coekjan closed 22 hours ago
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 label -T-libs +T-libs-api
r? libs-api
Has FCP been completed anywhere? I don't expect this to be controversial given all similar constructors are const
, but it is still required.
Has FCP been completed anywhere? I don't expect this to be controversial given all similar constructors are
const
, but it is still required.
No FCP yet. Should I do it in a new issue? Or just do it in #112353?
That issue is preferable to this PR, as people would already be subscribed there.
@rustbot claim
r=me
if and when FCP passes
@rustbot ready
@jhpratt FCP passed
Could not assign reviewer from: jhpratt
.
User(s) jhpratt
are either the PR author, already assigned, or on vacation, and there are no other candidates.
Use r?
to specify someone else to assign.
@bors r=jhpratt,dtolnay
:pushpin: Commit ef23a5b139e34a1a344f878e96fa9d3ff1b705a8 has been approved by jhpratt,dtolnay
It is now in the queue for this repository.
:hourglass: Testing commit ef23a5b139e34a1a344f878e96fa9d3ff1b705a8 with merge 179b6d75b490f8372a111ad6eaf0012435cf9a9b...
:broken_heart: Test failed - checks-actions
The job aarch64-apple
failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)
Looks like x fmt
needs to be run.
@bors d+
@bors r- d+
@Coekjan You should be able to respond with @bors r=jhpratt
once you format the code. I thought the bot usually responded when using d+
. If it doesn't work, don't worry — I'll get to it soon afterwards.
@bors r=jhpratt
@Coekjan: :key: Insufficient privileges: Not in reviewers
@bors r+
:pushpin: Commit 7cee7c664befc25a4d3392e9fbdb6999b23b4619 has been approved by jhpratt
It is now in the queue for this repository.
@bors r- d+
@Coekjan You should be able to respond with
@bors r=jhpratt
once you format the code. I thought the bot usually responded when usingd+
. If it doesn't work, don't worry — I'll get to it soon afterwards.
@jhpratt I think you need to spell out "delegate+", don't think "d+" is recognized
Ah, okay. I went by https://bors.tech/documentation, but I also know that Rust uses its own fork. Looking at https://bors.rust-lang.org, it seems you're correct.
:hourglass: Testing commit 7cee7c664befc25a4d3392e9fbdb6999b23b4619 with merge 466be510af95d377a4e9997a6ab7c4db5f91e9ec...
:sunny: Test successful - checks-actions Approved by: jhpratt Pushing 466be510af95d377a4e9997a6ab7c4db5f91e9ec to master...
Finished benchmarking commit (466be510af95d377a4e9997a6ab7c4db5f91e9ec): comparison URL.
@rustbot label: -perf-regression
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
Bootstrap: 666.776s -> 668.037s (0.19%) Artifact size: 318.89 MiB -> 318.86 MiB (-0.01%)
This pr aims to stablize
const_binary_heap_constructor
.BinaryHeap::new
is able to be stablized, butBinaryHeap::new_in
is not. Because the latter depends onVec::new_in
which is unstable.The
const_binary_heap_constructor
feature contains the two functions, and I want to split this feature now. This pr createsconst_binary_heap_new_in
feature forBinaryHeap::new_in
and stablizesconst_binary_heap_constructor
(now this original feature only contains one function).