Inline Default::default() for atomics #78621
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit e5b1f69 has been approved by |
eddyb
reviewed
Nov 1, 2020
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2020
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#78073 (Add #[inline] to some functions in core::str.) - rust-lang#78596 (Fix doc links to std::fmt) - rust-lang#78599 (Add note to process::arg[s] that args shouldn't be escaped or quoted) - rust-lang#78602 (fix various aliasing issues in the standard library) - rust-lang#78603 (expand: Tweak a comment in implementation of `macro_rules`) - rust-lang#78621 (Inline Default::default() for atomics) Failed merges: r? `@ghost`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Functions like
AtomicUsize::default()are not cross-crate inlineable before this PR (see assembly output here), which can lead to unexpected performance issues when initializing a large array using this function, e.g. as seen here which should turn into a simple loop writing zeroes but doesn't.r? @m-ou-se