Remove outdated SPRP hint#9312
Merged
Merged
Conversation
michaelsproul
added
ready-for-review
|
Some required checks have failed. Could you please take a look @michaelsproul? 🙏 |
mergify
Bot
added
waiting-on-author
michaelsproul
added
ready-for-merge
Merge Queue Status
This pull request spent 30 minutes 23 seconds in the queue, including 28 minutes 58 seconds running CI. Required conditions to merge
|
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Proposed Changes
While working on this code in another branch I noticed we had this messy, complicated and incorrect code about SPRP (slots-per-restore-point), which is no longer a relevant concept since the introduction of hot state diffs.
In the name of simplicity, I've removed any kind of hinting here in favour of a simple out of bounds error. The benefit of adding complex hinting code (which is not tested) to such a function is not worth it IMO. Users will work it out (or ask) if we just tell them their request is out of bounds.
Additional Info
There's a bit of churn from
rustfmt, which flip flops a bit with these deeply nested blocks and long format strings.