Skip to content

Conversation

sebastiantoh
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #114235

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 5, 2023

r? @jackh726

(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-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Aug 5, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@darklyspaced darklyspaced left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

all in all, this looks great. just a minor nit and a tentative proposal. thanks!

(unexpanded_fmt_span.shrink_to_hi(), "\"".to_string()),
(unexpanded_fmt_span.shrink_to_lo(), "\"".to_string()),
],
Applicability::MaybeIncorrect,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i can't think of any situations where this suggestion would ever produce code that wouldn't compile. i'm not exactly sure of the exact use cases for Applicability::MachineApplicable and how rigorously provable the suggestions must be, but due to the relatively simplicity of the suggestion and the general unambiguity surrounding the purpose of println! and associated macros, I think its fair to annotate this suggestion as MachineApplicable. let me know if i'm overlooking something obvious though

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the original you might be missing a string literal to format with suggestion, I can't think of cases where the suggestion would produce code that wouldn't compile too. Yet, it uses Applicability::MaybeIncorrect. This is why I used Applicability::MaybeIncorrect in this new suggestion. Do you think I should change both to Applicability::MachineApplicable?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think keeping MaybeIncorrect is probably best for now.

|
help: you might be missing a string literal to format with
|
LL | eprintln!("{}", {1});
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: removing the braces when there is only one distinct 'statement' would be nice, if you're up for it

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks for the suggestion! will look into it outside of this PR 😄

@jackh726
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 10, 2023

📌 Commit d003fd9 has been approved by jackh726

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 Aug 10, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 11, 2023

⌛ Testing commit d003fd9 with merge e286f25...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 11, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing e286f25 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 11, 2023
@bors bors merged commit e286f25 into rust-lang:master Aug 11, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.73.0 milestone Aug 11, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e286f25): 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)
2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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)
3.6% [3.6%, 3.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 631.684s -> 632.934s (0.20%)

@sebastiantoh sebastiantoh deleted the issue-114235 branch August 11, 2023 06:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

format argument must be a string literal could suggest inline args
6 participants