Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cleanup slice sort related closures in core and alloc #101816

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 18, 2022
Merged

Cleanup slice sort related closures in core and alloc #101816

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 18, 2022

Conversation

raldone01
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 14, 2022

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

  • Stabilizing library features
  • Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
  • Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
  • Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
  • Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

@rustbot rustbot added the T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Sep 14, 2022
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Sep 14, 2022
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 17, 2022

📌 Commit 59fe291 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@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 Sep 17, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 18, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 59fe291 with merge 4c2e500...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 18, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 4c2e500 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 18, 2022
@bors bors merged commit 4c2e500 into rust-lang:master Sep 18, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.66.0 milestone Sep 18, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (4c2e500): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.7% [2.2%, 3.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.6% [-2.8%, -2.4%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean1 range count2
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.1% [2.3%, 5.7%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Sep 18, 2022
@onestacked
Copy link
Contributor

onestacked commented Sep 18, 2022

Probably just noise, since I can't see how those changes could negatively effect performance.

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, a single regression like this is rarely meaningful.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Sep 18, 2022
@onestacked onestacked deleted the cleanup/select_nth_unstable branch September 24, 2022 20:29
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. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. 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.

8 participants