mark vec::IntoIter pointers as `!nonnull` #114205

the8472 · 2023-07-29T15:00:00Z

This applies the same NonNull optimizations to vec::IntoIter as #113344 did for slice::Iter

Godbolt showing the test IR on current nightly, note the absence of !nonnull on the loads.

r? @scottmcm

the8472 · 2023-07-29T15:44:00Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-07-29T15:44:09Z

⌛ Trying commit d65f21c8e91179cbd468cc480ad8401a80cce423 with merge 31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7...

bors · 2023-07-29T16:56:00Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7 (31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7)

scottmcm · 2023-07-29T21:58:30Z

r=me, assuming perf comes back tolerable

rust-timer · 2023-07-30T05:19:23Z

Finished benchmarking commit (31998b4119efbe4f8a7a72f7695a35766f54f1e7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.1%]	27
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.5%, 0.6%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.1%]	27

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)	2.7%	[1.5%, 6.7%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-7.1%, -1.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-7.1%, 6.7%]	11

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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%, 0.4%]	38
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, -0.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.5%, 0.4%]	44

Bootstrap: 651.072s -> 649.517s (-0.24%)

workingjubilee · 2023-07-30T08:50:26Z

r=me, assuming perf comes back tolerable

Overall result: ❌ regressions

Gonna assume that's a no.
@rustbot author

workingjubilee · 2023-07-30T08:52:28Z

...maybe that's a justification tho'.

the8472 · 2023-07-30T10:42:27Z

We don't have charts for the runtime benchmarks yet so it's hard to eyeball how significant that is.

Plus most of the regressions are in incremental with the dep-graph growing a bit. I don't know what that means, but maybe there's some fat that can be shaved off.

the8472 · 2023-07-31T07:24:04Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-07-31T07:24:15Z

⌛ Trying commit 899d960 with merge ccce35fd76fdf2a3f9722f31c89a81efbaefba53...

Kobzol · 2023-07-31T07:24:30Z

We don't have charts for the runtime benchmarks yet so it's hard to eyeball how significant that is.

I'll try to add charts and possibly also some cachegrind diff so that we can examine what causes these runtime benchmark changes.

bors · 2023-07-31T08:36:42Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ccce35fd76fdf2a3f9722f31c89a81efbaefba53 (ccce35fd76fdf2a3f9722f31c89a81efbaefba53)

the8472 · 2023-12-21T23:28:45Z

subtrahend
subtracted

platform-specific IR naming? Fun...

the8472 · 2024-01-03T11:04:38Z

@bors r=scottmcm

bors · 2024-01-03T11:04:40Z

📌 Commit 6a1ad55 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-01-03T11:04:41Z

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

mark vec::IntoIter pointers as `!nonnull` This applies the same NonNull optimizations to `vec::IntoIter` as rust-lang#113344 did for `slice::Iter` [Godbolt](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/n1cTea718) showing the test IR on current nightly, note the absence of `!nonnull` on the loads. r? `@scottmcm`

bors · 2024-01-04T01:15:15Z

⌛ Testing commit 6a1ad55 with merge c6821b8...

bors · 2024-01-04T01:36:06Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

bors · 2024-01-06T18:10:51Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #119662) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

the8472 · 2024-01-07T03:08:27Z

@bors r=scottmcm

bors · 2024-01-07T03:08:30Z

📌 Commit 93b34a5 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-01-07T09:13:35Z

⌛ Testing commit 93b34a5 with merge 9522993...

bors · 2024-01-07T11:19:01Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing 9522993 to master...

rust-timer · 2024-01-07T13:11:08Z

Finished benchmarking commit (9522993): 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)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.4%, 0.8%]	3

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)	3.3%	[0.4%, 4.9%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-3.4%, -1.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.9%	[-9.6%, -3.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[-3.4%, 4.9%]	7

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.8%]	37
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.8%]	41

Bootstrap: 667.475s -> 668.625s (0.17%)
Artifact size: 308.53 MiB -> 308.39 MiB (-0.05%)

rustbot assigned scottmcm Jul 29, 2023

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 Jul 29, 2023