Skip to content
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

Rollup of 6 pull requests #135101

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jan 4, 2025
Merged

Rollup of 6 pull requests #135101

merged 13 commits into from
Jan 4, 2025

Conversation

workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

RalfJung and others added 13 commits January 3, 2025 12:01
In llvm/llvm-project@7b23f41 , `.text`
started being suppressed from LLVM assembly in cases where it wasn't
strictly necessary. Currently, the sample functions in these two tests
are frequently decided to be IR-only functions, resulting in no code
generation, so LLVM drops the `.text` directive.

Adding `#[no_mangle]` forces these tests back to their original intent -
assembly code is generated, and so a `.text` directive is generated as
well.
I prefer when we can ship the same version of backtrace on crates.io,
and this will be the next published version.

Compare: rust-lang/backtrace-rs@4d7906b...0.3.75

Mostly internal-to-backtrace changes, plus a tiny code size win.
This should help when trying to debug issues.
…mpiler-errors

turn rustc_box into an intrinsic

I am not entirely sure why this was made a special magic attribute, but an intrinsic seems like a more natural way to add magic expressions to the language.
crashes: add latest batch of tests

try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: x86_64-gnu
try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl
…bilee

std: sync to dep versions of backtrace

Minor versions from backtrace desynced with std (they still differs in patch numbers, but still better):
https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/blob/4d7906bb24ae91ee6587127020d360f5298f9e7e/Cargo.toml#L44-L48

There is hidden bug here, let's see if CI can find it.

cc `@workingjubilee`
Force code generation in assembly generation smoke-tests

In llvm/llvm-project@7b23f41 , `.text` started being suppressed from LLVM assembly in cases where it wasn't strictly necessary. Currently, the sample functions in these two tests are frequently decided to be IR-only functions, resulting in no code generation, so LLVM drops the `.text` directive.

Adding `#[no_mangle]` forces these tests back to their original intent - assembly code is generated, and so a `.text` directive is generated as well.

`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
r? `@workingjubilee`

I'll attach a buildbot link once it finishes consuming this PR
…=workingjubilee

Bump backtrace to 0.3.75

I prefer when we can ship the same version of backtrace on crates.io, and this will be the next published version.

Compare: rust-lang/backtrace-rs@4d7906b...0.3.75

Mostly internal-to-backtrace changes, plus a tiny code size win.

r? `@ghost`
…stent-dir, r=jieyouxu

bootstrap: If dir_is_empty fails, show the non-existent directory path

This should help when trying to debug issues.
@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jan 4, 2025
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 4, 2025

📌 Commit e2983d8 has been approved by workingjubilee

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 Jan 4, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 4, 2025

⌛ Testing commit e2983d8 with merge 1891c28...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 4, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: workingjubilee
Pushing 1891c28 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 4, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 1891c28 into rust-lang:master Jan 4, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.86.0 milestone Jan 4, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#135046 turn rustc_box into an intrinsic 90b61b5dad710fc715ed8019b46aeb061f394c20 (link)
#135061 crashes: add latest batch of tests 15cea17f2da74c89ea269c46cea64f8fa94fab9b (link)
#135070 std: sync to dep versions of backtrace 42abf531cba01861def318210dc6e38ca79493ae (link)
#135088 Force code generation in assembly generation smoke-tests fc5100a0a025d25d9dd643de834a334df09a843a (link)
#135091 Bump backtrace to 0.3.75 1362fca927abcdce6ea060494d9c9faa664e319f (link)
#135094 bootstrap: If dir_is_empty fails, show the non-existent dir… 0fe74c827c2a7b70160030700817fe6204cd8886 (link)

previous master: ead4a8f536

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (1891c28): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)
0.7% [0.7%, 0.8%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.3%, 2.2%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.3% [-1.8%, -0.2%] 13
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [0.7%, 0.8%] 4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.3%, secondary 4.8%)

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)
2.3% [1.9%, 2.8%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
6.4% [1.3%, 15.0%] 14
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-5.9%, -0.8%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.3% [1.9%, 2.8%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.8%)

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)
1.4% [1.4%, 1.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.1% [-3.1%, -3.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.8%)

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)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.8%] 15
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.8% [0.5%, 1.4%] 38
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.1%, 0.8%] 15

Bootstrap: 762.69s -> 763.656s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 325.64 MiB -> 325.61 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jan 5, 2025
@klensy
Copy link
Contributor

klensy commented Jan 5, 2025

Small binary size regression should be hopefully fixed by #135110?

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jan 5, 2025

That was not it (#135113 (comment)), probably it was just the backtrace bump.

@workingjubilee workingjubilee deleted the rollup-owp3czl branch January 6, 2025 00:14
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member Author

hm, might need to adjust how we're measuring sizes for backtrace...

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jan 6, 2025

It might have been also caused by #135070.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jan 6, 2025

@rust-timer build 1362fca

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (1362fca): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -1.9%)

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)
-1.9% [-1.9%, -1.9%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary -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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.5% [-2.6%, -2.4%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.2%, 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)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.3%] 12
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.6%] 38
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.0%, 0.3%] 12

Bootstrap: 762.69s -> 761.839s (-0.11%)
Artifact size: 325.64 MiB -> 325.62 MiB (-0.01%)

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jan 6, 2025

Seems like it was indeed #135091.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jan 7, 2025

The perf. effects on the deep-vector benchmark were most likely caused by #135046, and it seemed to have been expected.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jan 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants