Skip to content

Do not gather local all together at the beginning of typeck #140561

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors commented May 1, 2025

r? lcnr

@rustbot 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 May 1, 2025
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@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 1, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 1, 2025
… r=<try>

Do not gather local all together at the beginning of typeck

r? lcnr
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 1, 2025

⌛ Trying commit fc8f9a4 with merge 154b8c2...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 1, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 154b8c2 (154b8c2f37d3dea13f53c27255d91094e5044378)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (154b8c2): 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 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)
0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.0% [-22.4%, -0.2%] 60
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.8% [-1.9%, -0.1%] 12
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.0% [-22.4%, 0.2%] 61

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.8%, secondary -0.2%)

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)
0.6% [0.4%, 0.9%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.4% [2.0%, 4.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.1% [-3.5%, -0.4%] 25
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.8% [-3.8%, -3.8%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.8% [-3.5%, 0.9%] 31

Cycles

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary -1.7%)

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)
0.6% [0.5%, 0.7%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.9% [-11.4%, -0.4%] 40
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.7% [-1.7%, -1.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.6% [-11.4%, 0.7%] 44

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 768.358s -> 767.967s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 365.48 MiB -> 365.38 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 2, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@lcnr lcnr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

small nits, otherwise r=me

the perf impact is wild :o

@compiler-errors compiler-errors marked this pull request as ready for review May 5, 2025 14:26
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 5, 2025

r=me after nit

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=lcnr rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 5, 2025

📌 Commit 45598de has been approved by lcnr

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 May 5, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 5, 2025
[DO NOT MERGE] bootstrap with `-Znext-solver=globally`

A revival of rust-lang#124812.

Current status:

~~`./x.py b --stage 2` passes 🎉~~

`try` builds succeed 🎉 🎉 🎉

[first perf run](rust-lang#133502 (comment)) 👻

### crater

This does not detect hangs or memory issues.

| date | #crates | #regressions |
| ---- | ------- | ------------ |
| 2025.04.11 | 100 | 2 |
| 2025.04.11 | 1000 | 27 |
| 2025.04.17 | 10000 | 456 |
| 2025.04.18 | 10000 | 437 |
| 2025.04.24 | 10000 | 164 |
| 2025.04.26 | 10000 | 108 |
| 2025.04.28 | 10000 | 91 |
| 2025.05.01 | 10000 | 145 woops |
| 2025.05.03 | 624228[^1] |  1585 |
| 2025.05.05 | 8964[^2] | 931 |

[^1]: a complete crater run
[^2]: only testing crates which may have regressed from the above run

### in-flight changes

- rust-lang#140561
- rust-lang#140672
- rust-lang#140678
- rust-lang#136997
- rust-lang#139587
- rust-lang#140497
- rust-lang#124852, unsure whether I actually want to land this PR for now
- https://github.com/lcnr/rust/tree/opaque-type-method-call
- rust-lang#140260
- rust-lang#140375
- rust-lang#140405
- rust-lang#140496
- double recursion limit in the new solver

r? `@ghost`
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.

5 participants