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

Use FieldIdx in various things related to aggregates #109849

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 3, 2023

Conversation

scottmcm
Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm commented Apr 2, 2023

Shrank AggregateKind by 8 bytes on x64, since the active field of a union is tracked as an Option<FieldIdx> instead of Option<usize>.

Part 3/? of rust-lang/compiler-team#606

IndexSlice was added in #109787

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 2, 2023

r? @lcnr

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@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 2, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 2, 2023

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

This PR changes MIR

cc @oli-obk, @RalfJung, @JakobDegen, @davidtwco, @celinval, @vakaras

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Shrank `AggregateKind` by 8 bytes on x64, since the active field of a union is tracked as an `Option<FieldIdx>` instead of `Option<usize>`.
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

scottmcm commented Apr 2, 2023

@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 2, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2023

⌛ Trying commit b5b6def with merge 1ed4ca37934bc0bad8719018caa6d02f6f508a43...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1ed4ca37934bc0bad8719018caa6d02f6f508a43 (1ed4ca37934bc0bad8719018caa6d02f6f508a43)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (1ed4ca37934bc0bad8719018caa6d02f6f508a43): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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 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)
0.4% [0.3%, 0.5%] 9
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.0% [-1.3%, -0.6%] 3
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)
1.1% [1.1%, 1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.3% [-3.3%, -3.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.0% [-3.1%, -1.0%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.3% [-3.3%, -3.3%] 1

Cycles

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

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Apr 2, 2023
@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

regressions are small and I know that at least some of these benchmarks have been noisy, so this seems perf neutral to me

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 2, 2023

r? @oli-obk @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2023

📌 Commit b5b6def has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned lcnr Apr 2, 2023
@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 2, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2023

⌛ Testing commit b5b6def with merge a93bcdc...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 3, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing a93bcdc to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 3, 2023
@bors bors merged commit a93bcdc into rust-lang:master Apr 3, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.70.0 milestone Apr 3, 2023
@scottmcm scottmcm deleted the more-fieldidx-rebase branch April 3, 2023 00:34
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a93bcdc): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)
0.6% [0.3%, 1.2%] 16
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)
1.6% [1.1%, 2.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.4% [-3.4%, -3.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.8% [-3.2%, -0.7%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.4% [-3.4%, -3.4%] 1

Cycles

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

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

Regressions limited to secondary benchmarks and I believe these couple benchmarks are prone to sporadic noise, so marking as triaged.

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. 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.

8 participants