Skip to content

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

arlosi and others added 22 commits January 4, 2024 11:40
addres -> address
…esleywiser

bootstrap: handle vendored sources when remapping crate paths

rust-lang#115872 introduced a feature to add path remapping for crate dependencies, but only when they came from Cargo's registry cache, not a vendor directory.

This caused builds that used remapped debuginfo and vendor directories to fail with:
```
std::fs::read_dir(registry_src) failed with No such file or directory (os error 2)
```
or (if the `registry/src` directory exists but is empty)
```
error: --remap-path-prefix must contain '=' between FROM and TO
```

Fixes rust-lang#117885 by explicitly supporting the `vendor` directory and adding it to `RUSTC_CARGO_REGISTRY_SRC_TO_REMAP`.

Note that `bootstrap.py` already assumes that `./vendor` within the rust repo is the only supported vendoring location.

r? `@pietroalbini`
…_improved_attr, r=petrochenkov

Improved collapse_debuginfo attribute, added command-line flag

Improved attribute collapse_debuginfo with variants: `#[collapse_debuginfo=(no|external|yes)]`.
Added command-line flag for default behaviour.
Work-in-progress: will add more tests.

cc rust-lang#100758
…sper

replace `track_errors` usages with bubbling up `ErrorGuaranteed`

more of the same as rust-lang#117449 (removing `track_errors`)
…ar-helper, r=lcnr

Remove `next_root_ty_var`

Uhh we seem to not have any test that relies on this anymore. Maybe due to the way we changed alias-relate or whatever.

Removing this hack helper fn because rust-lang#119106 is the general solution.

r? lcnr
…ikic

tests/ui/asm/inline-syntax: adapt for LLVM 18

Fixes rust-lang#119120.
…Lapkin

change `.unwrap()` to `?` on write where `fmt::Result` is returned

Fixes rust-lang#120090 which points out that some of the `.unwrap()`s in `rustc_middle/src/mir/pretty.rs` are likely meant to be `?`s
Fix typo in munmap_partial.rs

addres -> address
@rustbot rustbot added 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-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jan 18, 2024
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=9

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 18, 2024

📌 Commit 9c6795b has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jan 18, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

💥 Test timed out

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jan 19, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors retry

@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 19, 2024
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors p=11

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 9c6795b with merge 92d7277...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing 92d7277 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 19, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 92d7277 into rust-lang:master Jan 19, 2024
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.77.0 milestone Jan 19, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#119582 bootstrap: handle vendored sources when remapping crate pat… ad29c6e7f22b20b592b395f4c63b47488a0c155a (link)
#119730 docs: fix typos d3c9d4a75ed12469cbf231bc46ad98536ab3fcd2 (link)
#119828 Improved collapse_debuginfo attribute, added command-line f… 907a101ca9348c8bce7194043f9191ae7e8595e4 (link)
#119869 replace track_errors usages with bubbling up `ErrorGuaran… 9e918d1b993e92996112a470e2e2d57de215f1f6 (link)
#120037 Remove next_root_ty_var d62113ddf8b52917059346f0d11c3b2e6880437b (link)
#120094 tests/ui/asm/inline-syntax: adapt for LLVM 18 c8ad055df821195e9c27d332c2474810564ccc47 (link)
#120096 Set RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 consistently 9d86ac231a9f3f0a2818f6de3f3d3d79ee4f27b3 (link)
#120101 change .unwrap() to ? on write where fmt::Result is r… e912234e3098304a83935866639211ec8f5673d9 (link)
#120102 Fix typo in munmap_partial.rs 97148109e2a51307316aa97f36f9b5526baf0e3f (link)

previous master: 16fadb3f25

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 (92d7277): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.2% [0.3%, 4.1%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.7% [-0.7%, -0.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.7% [-0.7%, -0.7%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)
-4.6% [-4.6%, -4.6%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results

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)
3.7% [2.2%, 4.4%] 10
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 663.017s -> 665.984s (0.45%)
Artifact size: 308.29 MiB -> 308.33 MiB (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jan 19, 2024
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jan 19, 2024

Type checking seems to have regressed. Maybe #119869 or #120037? Let's see.

@rust-timer build 9e918d1

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (9e918d1): 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

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)
4.5% [4.5%, 4.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-4.7% [-4.7%, -4.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results

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

Bootstrap: 663.017s -> 663.908s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 308.29 MiB -> 308.28 MiB (-0.00%)

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jan 19, 2024

No, that was not it.

@rust-timer build d62113d

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d62113d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.6% [3.3%, 4.0%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)
4.4% [4.4%, 4.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.7% [-2.7%, -2.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-5.0% [-5.0%, -5.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.7% [-2.7%, -2.7%] 1

Cycles

Results

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)
3.5% [3.2%, 3.9%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 663.017s -> 665.959s (0.44%)
Artifact size: 308.29 MiB -> 308.26 MiB (-0.01%)

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jan 19, 2024

That seems to be it. @compiler-errors was the regression expected?

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

compiler-errors commented Jan 19, 2024

No, but looking back at the rollup (for the PR #112399) that added the helper function that I removed, it seems to have just undone the perf win here:

#112702 (comment)

So I think we can just ignore this perf regression.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jan 19, 2024

Ok.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jan 19, 2024
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-48o3919 branch March 16, 2024 18:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.