Skip to content

perf: delay checking of #[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs] in autoref lint #140406

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

Urgau
Copy link
Member

@Urgau Urgau commented Apr 28, 2025

Try to address the regression seen in #123239 (comment) by delaying the checking of #[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs] on method call.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 28, 2025

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@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 Apr 28, 2025
@Urgau
Copy link
Member Author

Urgau commented Apr 28, 2025

@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 Apr 28, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 28, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 3664fd9 with merge c219daa...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2025
perf: delay checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` in autoref lint

Try to address the regression seen in rust-lang#123239 (comment) by delaying the checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` on method call.
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 28, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c219daa (c219daa25e45c540fa286e1635485c7da0b41401)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Code changes look fine. r=me with the nits fixed, if it helps perf.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c219daa): comparison URL.

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

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 @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)
3.0% [3.0%, 3.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.0% [-3.4%, -0.2%] 5
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.2% [-3.4%, 3.0%] 6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.2%, 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)
1.2% [0.8%, 1.7%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.9% [1.9%, 1.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.0% [-2.1%, -0.4%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.2% [-2.1%, 1.7%] 6

Cycles

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary 2.0%)

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)
1.2% [0.4%, 2.8%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.2% [-2.8%, -0.4%] 10
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.6% [-2.8%, 2.8%] 13

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

Bootstrap: 765.314s -> 765.615s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 365.17 MiB -> 365.20 MiB (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Apr 28, 2025
@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the perf regression has been reversed! :)

@bors delegate=Urgau

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 29, 2025

✌️ @Urgau, you can now approve this pull request!

If @nnethercote told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@nnethercote

@Urgau
Copy link
Member Author

Urgau commented Apr 29, 2025

@bors r=@nnethercote

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 29, 2025

📌 Commit c519510 has been approved by nnethercote

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 Apr 29, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. 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