SipHasher with keys initialized to 0 should just use new() #71727
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Mark-Simulacrum (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
hbina
changed the title
|
Is there a reason this is a draft PR? It looks good to me. |
|
Made several seemingly meaningless commits along the way. Should I merge? |
|
Yes, please squash into one commit. |
|
@bors r+ rollup Thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 19e5da9 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
…lacrum SipHasher with keys initialized to 0 should just use new() I believe that is what the `new()` is for, for good reasons.
…lacrum SipHasher with keys initialized to 0 should just use new() I believe that is what the `new()` is for, for good reasons.
…lacrum SipHasher with keys initialized to 0 should just use new() I believe that is what the `new()` is for, for good reasons.
…lacrum SipHasher with keys initialized to 0 should just use new() I believe that is what the `new()` is for, for good reasons.
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#71510 (Btreemap iter intertwined) - rust-lang#71727 (SipHasher with keys initialized to 0 should just use new()) - rust-lang#71889 (Explain our RwLock implementation) - rust-lang#71905 (Add command aliases from Cargo to x.py commands) - rust-lang#71914 (Backport 1.43.1 release notes to master) - rust-lang#71921 (explain the types used in the open64 call) Failed merges: r? @ghost
I believe that is what the
new()is for, for good reasons.