Make `compare_impl_item` into a query #133365

compiler-errors · 2024-11-23T04:52:12Z

Turns compare_impl_item into a query (generalizing the existing query for compare_impl_const), and uses that in Instance::resolve to fail resolution when an implementation is incompatible with the trait it comes from.

Fixes #119701
Fixes #121127
Fixes #121411
Fixes #129075
Fixes #129127
Fixes #129214
Fixes #131294

compiler-errors · 2024-11-23T04:52:28Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2024-11-23T04:53:38Z

⌛ Trying commit c7ca253 with merge 507b0fd...

…=<try> Make `compare_impl_item` into a query First want to perf, then I'll write something up. r? `@ghost`

bors · 2024-11-23T06:40:49Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 507b0fd (507b0fdc53b493f2fe2f88a18d7b1f00914beafe)

rust-timer · 2024-11-23T08:30:03Z

Finished benchmarking commit (507b0fd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	37
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.5%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	37

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary 0.3%)

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-2.6%, -1.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.6%, 2.0%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary -2.2%, secondary 9.6%)

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)	9.6%	[9.6%, 9.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 795.253s -> 795.718s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 336.22 MiB -> 335.54 MiB (-0.20%)

compiler-errors · 2024-11-23T15:40:09Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…=<try> Make `compare_impl_item` into a query First want to perf, then I'll write something up. r? `@ghost`

bors · 2024-11-23T15:41:19Z

⌛ Trying commit 1b30977 with merge d249c37...

bors · 2024-11-23T15:55:33Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

compiler-errors · 2024-11-23T16:05:39Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2024-11-23T16:06:48Z

⌛ Trying commit 4ece9e6 with merge 9dedd0907e6ca8addde92511267c83ff2d1f6a22...

…=<try> Make `compare_impl_item` into a query First want to perf, then I'll write something up. r? `@ghost`

bors · 2024-11-23T17:50:26Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9dedd09 (9dedd0907e6ca8addde92511267c83ff2d1f6a22)

rust-timer · 2024-11-23T19:09:03Z

Finished benchmarking commit (9dedd09): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	38
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	38

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 2.8%)

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)	2.8%	[1.5%, 4.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary 0.7%)

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)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 797.765s -> 796.095s (-0.21%)
Artifact size: 336.28 MiB -> 335.53 MiB (-0.22%)

compiler-errors · 2024-11-23T19:49:57Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…=<try> Make `compare_impl_item` into a query First want to perf, then I'll write something up. r? `@ghost`

bors · 2024-11-23T19:51:07Z

⌛ Trying commit ed73297 with merge 2ae3eb8...

bors · 2024-11-23T21:37:48Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2ae3eb8 (2ae3eb8a0fbaac262cb8e778702853dd2a3045a5)

rust-timer · 2024-11-24T00:31:06Z

Finished benchmarking commit (2ae3eb8): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	31
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	31

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 1.6%)

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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[4.7%, 4.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary 3.4%)

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)	3.4%	[2.2%, 4.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 795.832s -> 797.975s (0.27%)
Artifact size: 336.26 MiB -> 335.52 MiB (-0.22%)

compiler-errors · 2024-11-24T02:42:29Z

Even though this has a modest perf hit on incr builds, I still think this should land, since it eliminates a large number of CTFE and inliner ICEs that come from Instance::resolveing signatures that are invalid.

compiler-errors · 2024-11-24T02:43:44Z

r? lcnr maybe? or re-roll, or maybe vibe-check on whether you think this isn't worth the perf hit.

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 23, 2024