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

Optimize Iterator implementation for &mut impl Iterator + Sized #111200

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 5, 2023

Conversation

a1phyr
Copy link
Contributor

@a1phyr a1phyr commented May 4, 2023

This adds a specialization trait to forward fold, try_fold,... to the inner iterator where possible

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 4, 2023

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 4, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 4, 2023

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

@the8472
Copy link
Member

the8472 commented May 4, 2023

Previous / still open attempts to do the same:

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

r? @the8472

@rustbot rustbot assigned the8472 and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum May 6, 2023
@the8472
Copy link
Member

the8472 commented May 7, 2023

Have you run the built-in microbenchmarks (./x bench)?

Meanwhile let's see how it affects compile-times.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 7, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 7, 2023

⌛ Trying commit 922cd41 with merge 87ffec05ceb5093beaab8a7340c10042c4ad211b...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 7, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 87ffec05ceb5093beaab8a7340c10042c4ad211b (87ffec05ceb5093beaab8a7340c10042c4ad211b)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (87ffec05ceb5093beaab8a7340c10042c4ad211b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-4.5% [-4.9%, -4.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.1% [-3.1%, -3.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -4.5% [-4.9%, -4.2%] 3

Cycles

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

Binary size

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.2%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.0%, 0.2%] 5

Bootstrap: 653.436s -> 654.245s (0.12%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 8, 2023
Copy link
Member

@the8472 the8472 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perf.rlo numbers are looking ok (finally!) but can you run the microbenchmarks? ./x bench core --test-args "iter::" should run some some that test the difference between normal and by-ref iterators. Though I'm not sure if they exercise fold.

library/core/src/iter/traits/iterator.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@clarfonthey
Copy link
Contributor

I did try to do this at one point but I remember running into problems because all of these methods are by-value. Are you sure you're actually forwarding anything and not just running on the original &mut impl? It doesn't look like it at first glance, but I might be missing something.

@a1phyr
Copy link
Contributor Author

a1phyr commented May 11, 2023

There are many very good improvements (up to x2.5!), but surprisingly there are a few regressions.

+ iter::bench_cycle_take_sum                   2,840,000 (+/- 56430)    2,420,000 (+/- 29910)        -420,000  -14.79%   x 1.17 
+ iter::bench_enumerate_chain_ref_sum          6,430,000 (+/- 151070)   4,560,000 (+/- 70980)      -1,870,000  -29.08%   x 1.41 
+ iter::bench_enumerate_ref_sum                2,850,000 (+/- 30300)    2,220,000 (+/- 28230)        -630,000  -22.11%   x 1.28 
+ iter::bench_filter_chain_ref_count           4,520,000 (+/- 63620)    3,630,000 (+/- 56520)        -890,000  -19.69%   x 1.25 
+ iter::bench_filter_chain_ref_sum             5,940,000 (+/- 89680)    3,930,000 (+/- 62200)      -2,010,000  -33.84%   x 1.51 
+ iter::bench_filter_chain_sum                 4,400,000 (+/- 156650)   3,870,000 (+/- 57980)        -530,000  -12.05%   x 1.14 
+ iter::bench_filter_map_chain_ref_sum         9,880,000 (+/- 137620)   4,080,000 (+/- 168620)     -5,800,000  -58.70%   x 2.42 
+ iter::bench_filter_map_ref_sum               3,100,000 (+/- 56680)    1,340,000 (+/- 23390)      -1,760,000  -56.77%   x 2.31 
+ iter::bench_filter_ref_count                 2,570,000 (+/- 49930)    1,310,000 (+/- 20390)      -1,260,000  -49.03%   x 1.96 
+ iter::bench_filter_ref_sum                   2,940,000 (+/- 32760)    1,390,000 (+/- 17400)      -1,550,000  -52.72%   x 2.12 
+ iter::bench_filter_sum                       1,470,000 (+/- 19750)    1,290,000 (+/- 171010)       -180,000  -12.24%   x 1.14 
+ iter::bench_flat_map_chain_sum               17,180,000 (+/- 212360)  16,080,000 (+/- 157240)    -1,100,000   -6.40%   x 1.07 
+ iter::bench_flat_map_ref_sum                 1,870,000 (+/- 16210)    1,310,000 (+/- 18730)        -560,000  -29.95%   x 1.43 
+ iter::bench_for_each_chain_ref_fold          4,010,000 (+/- 32240)    3,630,000 (+/- 37100)        -380,000   -9.48%   x 1.10 
+ iter::bench_fuse_chain_ref_sum               4,400,000 (+/- 60220)    3,160,000 (+/- 41270)      -1,240,000  -28.18%   x 1.39 
+ iter::bench_fuse_ref_sum                     2,570,000 (+/- 67820)    1,300,000 (+/- 22790)      -1,270,000  -49.42%   x 1.98 
+ iter::bench_inspect_chain_ref_sum            4,130,000 (+/- 38070)    3,150,000 (+/- 84390)        -980,000  -23.73%   x 1.31 
+ iter::bench_inspect_chain_sum                3,840,000 (+/- 114580)   3,160,000 (+/- 44510)        -680,000  -17.71%   x 1.22 
+ iter::bench_inspect_ref_sum                  1,800,000 (+/- 32770)    1,300,000 (+/- 22700)        -500,000  -27.78%   x 1.38 
+ iter::bench_lt                               388,540 (+/- 8280)       290,920 (+/- 12680)           -97,620  -25.12%   x 1.34 
+ iter::bench_partial_cmp                      388,560 (+/- 20470)      290,940 (+/- 12430)           -97,620  -25.12%   x 1.34 
+ iter::bench_peekable_chain_ref_sum           5,950,000 (+/- 108320)   3,880,000 (+/- 77500)      -2,070,000  -34.79%   x 1.53 
+ iter::bench_peekable_ref_sum                 3,340,000 (+/- 72060)    1,300,000 (+/- 9720)       -2,040,000  -61.08%   x 2.57 
+ iter::bench_skip_chain_ref_sum               5,450,000 (+/- 69460)    3,150,000 (+/- 41290)      -2,300,000  -42.20%   x 1.73 
+ iter::bench_skip_chain_sum                   3,370,000 (+/- 40890)    3,140,000 (+/- 41420)        -230,000   -6.82%   x 1.07 
+ iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_ref_sum  8,960,000 (+/- 194840)   7,930,000 (+/- 100570)     -1,030,000  -11.50%   x 1.13 
+ iter::bench_skip_ref_sum                     2,330,000 (+/- 28930)    1,290,000 (+/- 16200)      -1,040,000  -44.64%   x 1.81 
+ iter::bench_skip_while_chain_ref_sum         8,070,000 (+/- 116360)   3,160,000 (+/- 20140)      -4,910,000  -60.84%   x 2.55 
+ iter::bench_skip_while_chain_sum             3,580,000 (+/- 75270)    3,370,000 (+/- 101820)       -210,000   -5.87%   x 1.06 
+ iter::bench_skip_while_ref_sum               2,850,000 (+/- 49380)    1,210,000 (+/- 101950)     -1,640,000  -57.54%   x 2.36 
+ iter::bench_take_while_chain_ref_sum         2,580,000 (+/- 26740)    2,220,000 (+/- 33890)        -360,000  -13.95%   x 1.16 
+ iter::bench_take_while_chain_sum             2,210,000 (+/- 31890)    1,930,000 (+/- 50100)        -280,000  -12.67%   x 1.15 
- iter::bench_cycle_skip_take_ref_sum          2,330,000 (+/- 36760)    2,780,000 (+/- 49670)         450,000   19.31%   x 0.84 
- iter::bench_cycle_take_ref_sum               2,080,000 (+/- 23900)    2,440,000 (+/- 49420)         360,000   17.31%   x 0.85 
- iter::bench_cycle_take_skip_ref_sum          2,100,000 (+/- 36590)    2,510,000 (+/- 36290)         410,000   19.52%   x 0.84 
- iter::bench_filter_chain_count               3,780,000 (+/- 62680)    4,100,000 (+/- 68200)         320,000    8.47%   x 0.92 
- iter::bench_filter_map_chain_sum             3,410,000 (+/- 46900)    3,980,000 (+/- 166240)        570,000   16.72%   x 0.86 
- iter::bench_for_each_chain_loop              4,020,000 (+/- 73930)    4,670,000 (+/- 45530)         650,000   16.17%   x 0.86 
- iter::bench_fuse_chain_sum                   3,370,000 (+/- 78770)    3,770,000 (+/- 122160)        400,000   11.87%   x 0.89 
- iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_sum      7,520,000 (+/- 156080)   7,850,000 (+/- 163310)        330,000    4.39%   x 0.96 
- iter::bench_zip_add                          2,400 (+/- 79)           2,880 (+/- 113)                   480   20.00%   x 0.83 

Using codegen-units = 1 yield some even better results:

+ iter::bench_cycle_take_skip_ref_sum          763,040 (+/- 21810)     723,230 (+/- 31150)         -39,810   -5.22%   x 1.06 
+ iter::bench_enumerate_chain_ref_sum          2,490,000 (+/- 41610)   1,140,000 (+/- 17630)    -1,350,000  -54.22%   x 2.18 
+ iter::bench_enumerate_ref_sum                712,920 (+/- 23130)     514,340 (+/- 20750)        -198,580  -27.85%   x 1.39 
+ iter::bench_filter_chain_ref_count           2,660,000 (+/- 47500)   1,920,000 (+/- 28330)      -740,000  -27.82%   x 1.39 
+ iter::bench_filter_map_chain_ref_sum         2,720,000 (+/- 34250)   1,550,000 (+/- 20900)    -1,170,000  -43.01%   x 1.75 
+ iter::bench_filter_map_ref_sum               1,170,000 (+/- 18460)   777,150 (+/- 34470)        -392,850  -33.58%   x 1.51 
+ iter::bench_flat_map_chain_ref_sum           2,070,000 (+/- 29680)   531,940 (+/- 10720)      -1,538,060  -74.30%   x 3.89 
+ iter::bench_flat_map_sum                     522,250 (+/- 5730)      404,000 (+/- 9120)         -118,250  -22.64%   x 1.29 
+ iter::bench_for_each_chain_ref_fold          2,910,000 (+/- 42700)   891,080 (+/- 14120)      -2,018,920  -69.38%   x 3.27 
+ iter::bench_fuse_chain_ref_sum               2,930,000 (+/- 32240)   741,010 (+/- 12080)      -2,188,990  -74.71%   x 3.95 
+ iter::bench_fuse_chain_sum                   885,260 (+/- 21620)     738,290 (+/- 21190)        -146,970  -16.60%   x 1.20 
+ iter::bench_inspect_chain_ref_sum            2,930,000 (+/- 48850)   741,270 (+/- 9640)       -2,188,730  -74.70%   x 3.95 
+ iter::bench_inspect_chain_sum                885,350 (+/- 21560)     741,150 (+/- 28330)        -144,200  -16.29%   x 1.19 
+ iter::bench_inspect_sum                      520,120 (+/- 29050)     370,820 (+/- 13980)        -149,300  -28.70%   x 1.40 
+ iter::bench_peekable_chain_ref_sum           2,930,000 (+/- 39760)   737,880 (+/- 33780)      -2,192,120  -74.82%   x 3.97 
+ iter::bench_peekable_chain_sum               891,020 (+/- 21660)     741,220 (+/- 26120)        -149,800  -16.81%   x 1.20 
+ iter::bench_skip_chain_ref_sum               2,930,000 (+/- 40540)   884,990 (+/- 13830)      -2,045,010  -69.80%   x 3.31 
+ iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_ref_sum  5,120,000 (+/- 197580)  4,770,000 (+/- 90050)      -350,000   -6.84%   x 1.07 
+ iter::bench_skip_while_chain_ref_sum         2,640,000 (+/- 213540)  741,080 (+/- 12520)      -1,898,920  -71.93%   x 3.56 
+ iter::bench_skip_while_ref_sum               776,700 (+/- 14200)     372,090 (+/- 6420)         -404,610  -52.09%   x 2.09 
+ iter::bench_take_while_chain_ref_sum         605,040 (+/- 8910)      409,450 (+/- 16610)        -195,590  -32.33%   x 1.48 
+ iter::bench_zip_then_skip                    49 (+/- 1)              46 (+/- 1)                       -3   -6.12%   x 1.07 
- iter::bench_filter_chain_ref_sum             1,500,000 (+/- 46420)   1,730,000 (+/- 21530)       230,000   15.33%   x 0.87 
- iter::bench_filter_chain_sum                 1,380,000 (+/- 28850)   1,720,000 (+/- 20850)       340,000   24.64%   x 0.80 
- iter::bench_filter_ref_sum                   755,820 (+/- 45890)     862,870 (+/- 33230)         107,050   14.16%   x 0.88 
- iter::bench_for_each_chain_fold              737,070 (+/- 15980)     890,820 (+/- 13460)         153,750   20.86%   x 0.83 
- iter::bench_skip_ref_sum                     370,420 (+/- 34000)     519,570 (+/- 34210)         149,150   40.27%   x 0.71 
- iter::bench_skip_sum                         373,080 (+/- 5430)      519,630 (+/- 26050)         146,550   39.28%   x 0.72 

Some results are weird, though, because they shouldn't be affected

@a1phyr
Copy link
Contributor Author

a1phyr commented May 11, 2023

I did try to do this at one point but I remember running into problems because all of these methods are by-value. Are you sure you're actually forwarding anything and not just running on the original &mut impl? It doesn't look like it at first glance, but I might be missing something.

Actually try_fold takes a &mut self, so it can be used here (and this allows to override fold too)

@clarfonthey
Copy link
Contributor

I did try to do this at one point but I remember running into problems because all of these methods are by-value. Are you sure you're actually forwarding anything and not just running on the original &mut impl? It doesn't look like it at first glance, but I might be missing something.

Actually try_fold takes a &mut self, so it can be used here (and this allows to override fold too)

While that is the case, I do recall having performance regressions (#106463) when attempting to rewrite fold in terms of try_fold. It appears that there are few regressions from this PR, but that might just be due to the case that most implementations aren't being forwarded through &mut Iterator, even though the regressions are still there.

@a1phyr
Copy link
Contributor Author

a1phyr commented May 12, 2023

While that is the case, I do recall having performance regressions (#106463) when attempting to rewrite fold in terms of try_fold. It appears that there are few regressions from this PR, but that might just be due to the case that most implementations aren't being forwarded through &mut Iterator, even though the regressions are still there.

Actually there were regression in compiler performance, probably because of the additional work, but it is likely that there were runtime execution improvements (probably not that much actually because try_fold is not implementable outside of std yet, and fold is already specialized for most std iterators).

@the8472
Copy link
Member

the8472 commented Jun 12, 2023

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 12, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 12, 2023

⌛ Trying commit 6a830cf3d2a38c07a161f51bec4d3fccb06af620 with merge c4945223b4ece7576d3c0c99f6111dcd3490ab97...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 12, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c4945223b4ece7576d3c0c99f6111dcd3490ab97 (c4945223b4ece7576d3c0c99f6111dcd3490ab97)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c4945223b4ece7576d3c0c99f6111dcd3490ab97): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.4%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 10
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.6% [-1.1%, -0.1%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.0% [-0.2%, 0.4%] 16

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
4.8% [1.2%, 8.4%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.0% [1.8%, 2.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.3% [-2.9%, -1.8%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 4.8% [1.2%, 8.4%] 2

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.6% [1.6%, 1.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.6% [1.6%, 1.6%] 1

Binary size

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.1%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.0%, 0.1%] 7

Bootstrap: 647.661s -> 649.087s (0.22%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jun 12, 2023
@the8472
Copy link
Member

the8472 commented Jun 12, 2023

hrm, can we try again without those inlines?

@the8472
Copy link
Member

the8472 commented Aug 5, 2023

I have removed the last commit that added #[inline] which lead to worse perf results.

With that

@bors r+ rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2023

📌 Commit 922cd41 has been approved by the8472

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 Aug 5, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 922cd41 with merge eb088b8...

@@ -4018,4 +4018,66 @@ impl<I: Iterator + ?Sized> Iterator for &mut I {
fn nth(&mut self, n: usize) -> Option<Self::Item> {
(**self).nth(n)
}
fn fold<B, F>(self, init: B, f: F) -> B
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

@the8472 the8472 Aug 5, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mostly we're getting closer, but the #[inline]s still differ so that would affect performance and the tradeoffs aren't straight-forward.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: the8472
Pushing eb088b8 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 5, 2023
@bors bors merged commit eb088b8 into rust-lang:master Aug 5, 2023
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.73.0 milestone Aug 5, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (eb088b8): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.5%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.7% [-0.9%, -0.5%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.3%, 0.5%] 6

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.2% [0.1%, 0.3%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-0.2%, -0.0%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.2%, 0.3%] 6

Bootstrap: 649.206s -> 652.053s (0.44%)

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Aug 8, 2023
@a1phyr a1phyr deleted the spec_sized_iterators branch September 17, 2023 21:17
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