Skip to content

mir-opt: Do not create storage marks in EarlyOtherwiseBranch #141485

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

mir-opt: Do not create storage marks in EarlyOtherwiseBranch #141485

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+64 −47

Conversation

dianqk
Copy link
Member

@dianqk dianqk commented May 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Fixes #141212.

The first commit add StorageDead by creating new indirect BB that makes CFG more complicated, but I think it's better to just not create storage marks.

r? mir-opt

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 24, 2025

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

@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 24, 2025
@dianqk dianqk changed the title Early otherwise branch loop mir-opt: Do not create storage marks in EarlyOtherwiseBranch May 24, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented May 26, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 26, 2025
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request May 26, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of #141485 - dianqk:early_otherwise_branch_loop, r=<try>
26a3bb5 
mir-opt: Do not create storage marks in EarlyOtherwiseBranch

Fixes #141212.

The first commit add `StorageDead` by creating new indirect BB that makes CFG more complicated, but I think it's better to just not create storage marks.

r? mir-opt
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 26, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 8c7faa6 with merge 26a3bb5...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 26, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 26a3bb5 (26a3bb52c9ec74248edb6096a8ed75f76e4db99d)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (26a3bb5): 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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.9% [-2.9%, -2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.9% [-2.9%, -2.9%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%)

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1

Bootstrap: 776.359s -> 778.13s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 366.28 MiB -> 366.27 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@wesleywiser wesleywiser

Labels
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.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

EarlyOtherwiseBranch can insert storage markers incorrectly, creating use of a dead local
6 participants
@dianqk @rustbot @oli-obk @rust-timer @bors @wesleywiser