-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Split TypeVisitable from TypeFoldable #98206
Conversation
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
1 similar comment
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
1 similar comment
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit 02ffdd8a61a16e456b8ecca07b50a377fb4e6d0b with merge bad46eb863052b6f63aa85031bb6a6d8f52a5123... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
02ffdd8
to
2e61689
Compare
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit 2e616894f4abe8ad696a274478b8918032024f9f with merge fd426ee2bcc2183c3636c38927e5866d02146a13... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Queued fd426ee2bcc2183c3636c38927e5866d02146a13 with parent 43c47db, future comparison URL. |
Finished benchmarking commit (fd426ee2bcc2183c3636c38927e5866d02146a13): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. 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 @bors rollup=never Footnotes |
Cachegrind diff of worst performing benchmark (keccak Check Full)
|
Looks just like inliner shenanigans... |
2e61689
to
db21add
Compare
Rebased off #98219. |
I'm inclined to let the MCP sit for a few more days, (maybe until after Thursday's compiler meeting), but otherwise feel good about merging this. Need to "actually" review this though before merge. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #98238) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
db21add
to
5fd3a9f
Compare
3987b32
to
4f0a647
Compare
@bors r=jackh726 p=1 |
@eggyal: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: Not in reviewers |
@eggyal: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 4f0a647 has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (5b8cf49): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Footnotes |
Summary: It includes this fix which was backported to 1.62.1. rust-lang/rust#98950 `2022-08-06` is what will become 1.64.0. Changes are caused by: - Split TypeVisitable from TypeFoldable: rust-lang/rust#98206 - Remove `fn backtrace` and replace with usages of provider API: rust-lang/rust#99431 Reviewed By: stepancheg Differential Revision: D39277984 fbshipit-source-id: 5afc6c2b9e5ee3074ea0ede995868aef12cebf14
Summary: It includes this fix which was backported to 1.62.1. rust-lang/rust#98950 `2022-08-06` is what will become 1.64.0. Changes are caused by: - Split TypeVisitable from TypeFoldable: rust-lang/rust#98206 - Remove `fn backtrace` and replace with usages of provider API: rust-lang/rust#99431 Reviewed By: stepancheg Differential Revision: D39277984 fbshipit-source-id: 5afc6c2b9e5ee3074ea0ede995868aef12cebf14
Impl of rust-lang/compiler-team#520 following MCP approval.
r? @ghost