core: Destabilize beta-stable RangeInclusiveIter::remainder

[tgross35]

View all comments

Destabilize RangeInclusiveIter::remainder and move {RangeIter,RangefromIter}::remainder to the new_range_api feature gate.

Original tracking issue: #125687
New tracking issue: #154458
Discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/327149-t-libs-api.2Fapi-changes/topic/.60RangeFrom.3A.3Aremainder.60.20possible.20panic/with/582108913

[rustbot]

r? @joboet

rustbot has assigned @joboet.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: @scottmcm, libs
• @scottmcm, libs expanded to 8 candidates
• Random selection from Mark-Simulacrum, jhpratt, joboet, scottmcm

[tgross35]

@rustbot label +beta-nominated

Only the first commit needs to be backported, though there isn't really any harm in taking the second too.

[tgross35]

I'm a bit stuck blessing this until #154408 is resolved. If anyone has a successful build, please feel free to push to my branch or take this over.

[ZuseZ4]

@tgross35 I'll revert the PR that caused it till someone with a Mac has more time to debug and land a proper fix. But in the meantime, isn't #154408 (comment) a fix for you?

[tgross35]

I did see that a bit later, I'll try it when I get the change. Thanks for pointing it out

[ZuseZ4]

Sounds good. Otherwise, here is the revert PR, in case you want to keep track: #154485

[scottmcm]

That mentioned revert PR landed, so hopefully we're good now.

I'll take #t-libs-api/api-changes > `RangeFrom::remainder` possible panic @ 💬 as libs-api assent to do this, and personally agree with "let's just unstabilize to give time to think about things". (Since it's not stable yet it's not a breaking change to unstabilize either.)

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit bf3d60d has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[scottmcm]

Oh, and because we want to get this into beta,
@bors p=1

[tgross35]

I think I still need to bless, just couldn’t do it locally. I’ll be able to double check in half an hour

@bors r-

[tgross35]

Just needed to update some feature gates in tests and add an extra error annotation.

@bors r=scottmcm

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 0537c58 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[tgross35]

@bors rollup

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors r-
Ci failed

[rust-bors]

This pull request was unapproved.

Auto build was cancelled due to unapproval. Cancelled workflows:

• https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/23703510698

[tgross35]

I missed adding the feature gate to the new doctests when I rebased.

@bors r=scottmcm

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 0bb3fe3 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: scottmcm
Duration: 3h 14m 12s
Pushing cd14b73 to main...

[github-actions]

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 584d32e (parent) -> cd14b73 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 16 test diffs

16 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 cd14b73b4a41542d921f59e362a5b5005fa4f2ef --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. dist-ohos-x86_64: 1h 14m -> 1h 23m (+12.0%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 1h 44m -> 1h 56m (+11.6%)
3. dist-aarch64-apple: 1h 45m -> 1h 34m (-10.5%)
4. x86_64-gnu-distcheck: 2h 14m -> 2h 1m (-9.9%)
5. i686-msvc-2: 2h 1m -> 2h 13m (+9.8%)
6. dist-armhf-linux: 1h 26m -> 1h 34m (+8.6%)
7. x86_64-msvc-ext3: 1h 54m -> 1h 44m (-8.4%)
8. dist-x86_64-msvc-alt: 2h 32m -> 2h 44m (+8.3%)
9. dist-i686-msvc: 2h 10m -> 2h 20m (+8.0%)
10. dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw: 1h 39m -> 1h 47m (+7.2%)

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.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cd14b73): 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 (primary 2.1%, secondary 3.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[1.8%, 2.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[1.8%, 2.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 3.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.2%	[3.2%, 3.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[3.2%, 3.2%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 484.385s -> 487.525s (0.65%)
Artifact size: 394.81 MiB -> 394.89 MiB (0.02%)