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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

interpret: fix projecting into an unsized field of a local #114483

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 30, 2023
Merged

interpret: fix projecting into an unsized field of a local #114483

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 30, 2023

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung commented Aug 4, 2023 •
edited
Loading

See the new Miri testcase that didn't work before.

r? @oli-obk

@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 Aug 4, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 4, 2023

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Aug 4, 2023

I just hope this doesn't make the common case slower...
@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 4, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 4, 2023

⌛ Trying commit c537c711d246eb520f28a016e9317cafc29190fa with merge e18b52482e83fec0935bfec040206b4b22635df3...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 4, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e18b52482e83fec0935bfec040206b4b22635df3 (e18b52482e83fec0935bfec040206b4b22635df3)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e18b52482e83fec0935bfec040206b4b22635df3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@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)		 0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.5% [0.5%, 0.5%] 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)		 1.2% [1.2%, 1.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 649.27s -> 649.317s (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 4, 2023
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Aug 5, 2023

Seems okay, but I still have an idea for how to make this nicer I think.

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 5, 2023
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Aug 5, 2023

Yes that's much better I think. :)
@bors try @rust-timer queue
@rustbot ready

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Aug 5, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2023

⌛ Trying commit d954940d491ff84a23633959a48422694c41769a with merge 318fd52a4c504aa30078a558987b4cb839ef7712...

RalfJung
RalfJung commented Aug 5, 2023
View reviewed changes
compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/operand.rs
&self,
offset: Size,
meta: MemPlaceMeta<Prov>,
layout: TyAndLayout<'tcx>,
cx: &impl HasDataLayout,
ecx: &InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M>,
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Technically I could now undo the part of the change that passes InterpCx to offset. However, that will be needed anyway for #114330, so I figured I'd keep it.

@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the unsized-fields branch 2 times, most recently from ee239a6 to ba5b3ff Compare August 5, 2023 12:25
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Aug 5, 2023

@bors try

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2023

⌛ Trying commit ba5b3ffc703805330b0a276bc15a8f5241e5fa9a with merge 72d7fd2d8b316ddc594019335e96c533b30c56e2...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 17, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b3fb7c702107951922ea0057feeb0610a32f5781 (b3fb7c702107951922ea0057feeb0610a32f5781)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b3fb7c702107951922ea0057feeb0610a32f5781): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@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)		 1.7% [1.4%, 2.0%] 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)		 3.5% [3.5%, 3.5%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.1% [-3.1%, -3.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.5% [3.5%, 3.5%] 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)		 2.1% [2.0%, 2.2%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 632.38s -> 634.36s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 347.07 MiB -> 347.06 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 17, 2023
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Aug 17, 2023 via email

@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the unsized-fields branch 2 times, most recently from 5a0865d to c3bfcd5 Compare August 17, 2023 17:02
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Aug 30, 2023

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 30, 2023

📌 Commit 6d1ce9b has been approved by oli-obk

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 Aug 30, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 30, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 6d1ce9b with merge 26089ba...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 30, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 26089ba to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 30, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 26089ba into rust-lang:master Aug 30, 2023
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.74.0 milestone Aug 30, 2023
This was referenced Aug 30, 2023
Closed
Merged
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (26089ba): 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)		 2.0% [1.9%, 2.1%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.2% [-2.2%, -2.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.2% [-2.2%, -2.2%] 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)		 -1.2% [-2.0%, -0.4%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.5% [-3.1%, -0.6%] 8
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.2% [-2.0%, -0.4%] 2

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)		 -1.9% [-1.9%, -1.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.9% [-1.9%, -1.9%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 632.146s -> 631.943s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 316.62 MiB -> 316.62 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Aug 31, 2023
@RalfJung RalfJung deleted the unsized-fields branch August 31, 2023 07:00
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

That actually looks better than expected, I didn't expect speedups at all based on the last benchmarks in the PR.^^

Regressions only affect our ctfe stress test, so it's likely some exaggerated consequence of a tiny change.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Sep 6, 2023

Regressions only affect our ctfe stress test, so it's likely some exaggerated consequence of a tiny change.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Sep 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@oli-obk oli-obk

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
Milestone
1.74.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@RalfJung @rustbot @rust-timer @bors @rust-log-analyzer @saethlin @oli-obk @pnkfelix