Rollup of 3 pull requests

[matthiaskrgr]

Successful merges:

• Annotate some bugs #118962 (Annotate some bugs)
• coverage: Use Waker::noop in async tests #118969 (coverage: Use Waker::noop in async tests)
• Annotate panic! reasons during enum layout #118974 (Annotate panic! reasons during enum layout)

Failed merges:

• Refactor pre-getopts command line argument handling #111658 (Refactor pre-getopts command line argument handling)
• Avoid silencing relevant follow-up errors #117449 (Avoid silencing relevant follow-up errors)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

[bors]

📌 Commit 88a9619 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 88a9619 with merge e6707df...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing e6707df to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#118962	Annotate some bugs	50c2fd85cb3fae0c99f752370fdbed97e4890bba (link)
#118969	coverage: Use Waker::noop in async tests	e1d164121f796710c3f8c78d3fee62d7f2ebc2da (link)
#118974	Annotate panic! reasons during enum layout	17bc1b7e6a629d2f3b474a6d6dc402c60018192d (link)

previous master: 4d1bd0db7f

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]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6707df): 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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.0%, 0.8%]	32
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	4

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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.6%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-1.6%, 3.3%]	3

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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 674.139s -> 673.805s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 312.37 MiB -> 312.56 MiB (0.06%)

[workingjubilee]

@rust-timer build 50c2fd8

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (50c2fd8): 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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.0%, 0.8%]	34
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	4

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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.2%, -0.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.2%, 0.8%]	3

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 674.139s -> 672.369s (-0.26%)
Artifact size: 312.37 MiB -> 312.56 MiB (0.06%)

[workingjubilee]

cc @compiler-errors It seems your annotation PR in #118962 has caused a nontrivial perf regression. On the other hand, the only "real world" bench affected is "Hello, world!", and all the other ones are stress benches, so perhaps this is more artificial than it seems. Either way, I suspect you'd have a better sense for evaluating this.

[compiler-errors]

Huh, I don't expect to have done anything in that PR resulting in worse performance...

[Kobzol]

I think that this is just a continuation of the recent noise spikes in some benchmarks. CC @lqd who can best recognize these situations.

[workingjubilee]

...Surely there is some sort of statistical method to isolate "noise" like this?

[lqd]

I think that this is just a continuation of the recent noise spikes in some benchmarks. CC @lqd who can best recognize these situations.

I also believe it's noise. My theory is that the noise threshold gets lower due to a period of lesser noise, and when the usual noise comes back this is seen as a regression. It's what I imagine the graph shows, but we probably would be able to tell better if we saved a history of the threshold, and visualized it as a shaded range on the above graph.

edit: the changes here went back to their steady-state in the PR that was merged immediately afterwards. Marking as triaged due to noise.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged