Change more usages of SemanticModel::is_builtin to use resolve_builtin_symbol or match_builtin_expr
#10982
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
I've added the |
AlexWaygood
force-pushed
the
builtins-3
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e0ca789
to
3c5bf04
Compare
…ltin_symbol` or `match_builtin_expr`
|
Performance is overall neutral, but some linter benchmarks are showing regressions of 1-2%. I think that's probably okay, given that #10982 was also overall neutral, and the final version of that PR had improvements of 2-3% on some of the same benchmarks. I can't see an easy/clean way of moving the calls to the semantic model lower down in any of the rules I'm touching here. |
|
MichaReiser
approved these changes
Apr 17, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
This PR switches more callsites of
SemanticModel::is_builtinto move over to the new methods I introduced in #10919, which are more concise and more accurate. I missed these calls in the first PR.Test Plan
cargo test. I haven't introduced any new tests in this PR, because I added quite a few in #10919, and this is just doing the same thing as that PR. One existing violation in the test fixtures becomes newly fixable, though.