Skip to content

Conversation

dianqk
Copy link
Member

@dianqk dianqk commented Oct 30, 2024

Closes #131031.

r? nikic

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 30, 2024

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

  • These commits modify submodules.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 30, 2024
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Oct 30, 2024

This doesn't have a regression test because it's a PITA (or next to impossible) to test for #131031 right?

EDIT: I thought it was very hard to come up with a test case for based upon a very quick reading of the issue, if we can have a test case then great!

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 30, 2024

This doesn't have a regression test because it's a PITA (or next to impossible) to test for #131031 right?

Looks like this is worth adding a test case.

The failure output is:
```
SplitVectorOperand Op #1: t51: i32 = llvm.wasm.alltrue TargetConstant:i32<12408>, t50

rustc-LLVM ERROR: Do not know how to split this operator's operand!
```
@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Oct 30, 2024
@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Oct 31, 2024

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 31, 2024

📌 Commit ebeaaad has been approved by nikic

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 Oct 31, 2024
@Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor

Zalathar commented Nov 1, 2024

Not rolling up LLVM updates seems like a good idea in general.

@bors rollup=never

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 1, 2024

⌛ Testing commit ebeaaad with merge b2420d3...

@slanterns slanterns mentioned this pull request Nov 1, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job dist-x86_64-illumos failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 1, 2024

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Nov 1, 2024
@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Nov 1, 2024

@bors retry LLVM rebuild timeout

@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 Nov 1, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 2, 2024

⌛ Testing commit ebeaaad with merge b5f4883...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 2, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikic
Pushing b5f4883 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 2, 2024
@bors bors merged commit b5f4883 into rust-lang:master Nov 2, 2024
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.84.0 milestone Nov 2, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b5f4883): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 4.1%)

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)
4.1% [4.1%, 4.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.2%)

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)
-2.2% [-2.2%, -2.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 779.182s -> 779.165s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 335.34 MiB -> 335.32 MiB (-0.00%)

@dianqk dianqk deleted the llvm/19.1.3 branch November 2, 2024 11:11
@workingjubilee workingjubilee added the A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. label May 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

LLVM regression in beta with -Ctarget-feature=-simd128
9 participants