Skip to content

Conversation

Kmeakin
Copy link
Contributor

@Kmeakin Kmeakin commented Aug 16, 2025

Split off from #145219

According to
https://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value, the set of codepoints in Cc will never change. So we can hard-code the patterns to match against instead of using a table.

This doesn't change the generated assembly, since the lookup table is small enough that LLVM is able to inline the whole search. But this does reduce the chance of regressions if LLVM's heuristics change in the future, and means less generated Rust code checked in to unicode-data.rs.

According to
https://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value,
the set of codepoints in `Cc` will never change. So we can hard-code
the patterns to match against instead of using a table.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 16, 2025

r? @thomcc

rustbot has assigned @thomcc.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Aug 16, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 16, 2025

library/core/src/unicode/unicode_data.rs is generated by
src/tools/unicode-table-generator via ./x run src/tools/unicode-table-generator. If you want to modify unicode_data.rs,
please modify the tool then regenerate the library source file with the tool
instead of editing the library source file manually.

jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
jieyouxu added a commit to jieyouxu/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2025
Rollup merge of #145486 - Urgau:unicode-mention, r=lqd

Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang/rust#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide that referenced this pull request Aug 25, 2025
Fix `unicode_data.rs` mention message

The [previous message](rust-lang/rust#145479 (comment)) was weirdly formatted, let's render it properly.
@joboet
Copy link
Member

joboet commented Aug 30, 2025

Great!
@bors r+
r? joboet

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 30, 2025

📌 Commit 1bb9b15 has been approved by joboet

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@rustbot rustbot assigned joboet and unassigned thomcc Aug 30, 2025
@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 30, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 30, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 1bb9b15 with merge 0f50696...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 30, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: joboet
Pushing 0f50696 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 30, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 0f50696 into rust-lang:master Aug 30, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.91.0 milestone Aug 30, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing e95db59 (parent) -> 0f50696 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 58 test diffs

58 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 0f506968010fa987b0d134034d0ccab9eecd9120 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. aarch64-apple: 7528.2s -> 5051.3s (-32.9%)
  2. dist-aarch64-apple: 8111.7s -> 5773.8s (-28.8%)
  3. dist-aarch64-msvc: 5427.7s -> 5862.5s (8.0%)
  4. x86_64-gnu-debug: 7204.7s -> 7693.4s (6.8%)
  5. dist-x86_64-apple: 6813.6s -> 6360.2s (-6.7%)
  6. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2564.9s -> 2732.5s (6.5%)
  7. x86_64-gnu-distcheck: 5544.2s -> 5199.9s (-6.2%)
  8. dist-sparcv9-solaris: 4958.9s -> 5245.7s (5.8%)
  9. dist-apple-various: 3607.2s -> 3413.9s (-5.4%)
  10. dist-x86_64-illumos: 5963.1s -> 6279.3s (5.3%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@Kmeakin Kmeakin deleted the km/hardcode-char-is-control branch August 30, 2025 17:30
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (0f50696): 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)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.0%)

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 34
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 4

Bootstrap: 464.738s -> 465.405s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 388.52 MiB -> 388.57 MiB (0.01%)

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-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants