scottmcm
scottmcm
Ah, right. Thanks, @T0mstone -- my mistake.
FWIW, if you try ```rust #![feature(binary_heap_into_iter_sorted)] pub fn demo(it: &std::collections::binary_heap::IntoIterSorted) -> usize { let (low, high) = it.size_hint(); assert_eq!(Some(low), high); low } ``` in playground with "Show MIR" Then you'll...
I still think we should do this, as it's consistent with other things that we've done previously (like breaking `struct Foo { #[inline] x: u32 }`). Given that this has...
> * I tried using `index.unchecked_sub(1)`, but found it doesn't remove bounds checks, whereas `index.checked_sub(1).unwrap_unchecked()` does. Surprising! This is the long-frustrating problem that `sub nuw i32 %1, 1` gets turned...
My lang intuition says that we shouldn't make *any* more traits `#[fundamental]` -- I'd argue that anything wanting that should instead be done via better coherence features instead. (Like integrating...
So I like contracts, but it seems like we shouldn't be getting rustc-perf impacts *this* high to add them when they're not even being used to do anything? Is there...
> Don't we have many examples of violating this? We generally try to make it so there's a 1-release transition window. We don't need to worry about years-old versions, but...
Sure, with the rebase we might as well give it a shot @bors try @rust-timer queue
Personally I still *want* to do this, but at the same time with my reviewer hat on I don't know if I can justify the perf numbers. Anywhere outside the...