cache dtorck constraints on ADTs #41485
Conversation
| @@ -1332,17 +1334,6 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> ParameterEnvironment<'tcx> { | |||
| pub struct Destructor { | |||
| /// The def-id of the destructor method | |||
| pub did: DefId, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this struct be replaced with just DefId?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I want to be more clear that this is the method def-id, rather than the impl-defid.
| depth: usize, | ||
| ty: Ty<'tcx>) | ||
| -> Result<ty::DtorckConstraint<'tcx>, ErrorReported> | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this need to be in librustc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is used on both "local" and "remote" providers, and typeck provides only "local" things. I bet you can bypass that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I already added something in librustc/ty/mod.rs like that (also see the driver). We'll clean it up when we have more uniform intercrate caching.
3c13198 to
6d01b88
Compare
|
@bors r=eddyb |
|
📌 Commit 6d01b88 has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 6d01b88 with merge 3004380... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
This avoids visiting the fields of all structs multiple times, improving item-bodies checking time by 10% (!).
|
stupid "refactored and didn't clean up" error @bors r=eddyb |
|
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
|
📌 Commit 6d01b88 has been approved by |
|
@bors r- |
6d01b88 to
d3476f4
Compare
|
@bors r=eddyb |
|
📌 Commit d3476f4 has been approved by |
cache dtorck constraints on ADTs This avoids visiting the fields of all structs multiple times, improving item-bodies checking time by 10% (!). Not sure whether we want this in 1.18 or 1.19. It's a big-ish patch, but the 10% win is very tempting. r? @eddyb
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This avoids visiting the fields of all structs multiple times, improving item-bodies checking time by 10% (!).
Not sure whether we want this in 1.18 or 1.19. It's a big-ish patch, but the 10% win is very tempting.
r? @eddyb