Skip to content

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Follow-up of #138907.

r? lolbinarycat

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 28, 2025
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2025
…, r=<try>

Remove one loop in `extract_cfg_from_attrs`
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@lolbinarycat lolbinarycat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

code is sound, as Attribute::ident always returns None for Attribute::Parsed, so there is no case where both branches would have run and now only one runs.

one question about a comment, otherwise lgtm.

View changes since this review


let mut changed_auto_active_status = None;

// First we get all `doc(auto_cfg)` attributes.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

does this comment still make sense?

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 28, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7b3f411 (7b3f4110d6faa0cbf30b4d01ad4d4f43c3b677e1, parent: c8905eaa66e0c35a33626e974b9ce6955c739b5b)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (7b3f411): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.7% [-3.7%, -3.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.5% [-3.7%, 2.7%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.8% [2.3%, 3.4%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 470.874s -> 471.366s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 387.66 MiB -> 387.66 MiB (0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 29, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants