feed `def_span` in resolver by bvanjoi · Pull Request #118633 · rust-lang/rust

bvanjoi · 2023-12-05T04:14:09Z

This PR removes provider.def_span and instead introduces it during the definition collection process

cjgillot · 2023-12-05T08:15:45Z

bors · 2023-12-05T08:16:58Z

⌛ Trying commit c49fec5 with merge 167da5e...

feed `def_span` in resolver Fixes rust-lang#118552 This PR removes `provider.def_span` and instead introduces it during the definition collection process r? `@cjgillot`

bors · 2023-12-05T09:43:08Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 167da5e (167da5e5d5acfa513f782c9e7ae8a3f87609e2e7)

rust-timer · 2023-12-05T11:29:04Z

Finished benchmarking commit (167da5e): 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)	3.0%	[0.3%, 19.6%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	21
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-0.6%, 19.6%]	42

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)	7.6%	[7.6%, 7.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.3%, 4.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-2.1%, -0.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-4.5%, -1.7%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-2.1%, 7.6%]	4

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)	4.7%	[1.7%, 19.3%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.3%	[-2.1%, 19.3%]	16

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)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.0%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.7%, -0.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.0%, 1.0%]	24

Bootstrap: 675.321s -> 675.595s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 314.15 MiB -> 314.19 MiB (0.01%)

oli-obk · 2023-12-05T11:38:00Z

I think this needs #115613 in order to not be a perf regression in some incremental cases

cjgillot

I think this needs #115613 in order to not be a perf regression in some incremental cases

On the contrary, I think this is due to spans not being marked relative, as lowering does it.

cjgillot · 2023-12-07T08:43:23Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-12-07T08:44:33Z

⌛ Trying commit e4c5f03 with merge e344b7c...

feed `def_span` in resolver Fixes rust-lang#118552 This PR removes `provider.def_span` and instead introduces it during the definition collection process r? `@cjgillot`

bors · 2023-12-07T10:08:21Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e344b7c (e344b7cc1f0649c320f336591df26ddf4fd0eaaf)

rust-timer · 2023-12-07T15:00:42Z

Finished benchmarking commit (e344b7c): 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)	1.7%	[0.1%, 19.5%]	44
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.2%, 2.4%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.2%, -0.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-1.2%, 19.5%]	47

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)	2.2%	[0.5%, 7.7%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[0.6%, 4.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-4.0%, -0.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.1%, -2.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-4.0%, 7.7%]	14

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)	4.6%	[0.5%, 19.2%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.6%	[0.5%, 19.2%]	15

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 1.0%]	38
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.0%, 1.5%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 1.0%]	38

Bootstrap: 675.831s -> 672.572s (-0.48%)
Artifact size: 314.22 MiB -> 314.24 MiB (0.01%)

petrochenkov · 2023-12-11T15:36:41Z

Why on earth does it affect mir_borrowck so much, of all things.

bvanjoi · 2023-12-25T12:59:41Z

-                }
-                _ => named_span(item.span, item.ident, item.kind.generics()),
-            },
            Node::Variant(variant) => named_span(variant.span, variant.ident, None),


Only the parent of the constructor can enter Node::Variant(_) => xxxx

bvanjoi · 2023-12-25T13:03:43Z

        // FIXME: remove `def_span` body, pass in the right spans here and call `tcx.at().create_def()`
        let def_id = self.tcx.create_def(parent, name, def_kind);

-        // Create the definition.


This isn't actually deleted; rather, it's marked as removed in git and is consequently moved below (This is a result of moving self.tcx.untracked().source_span.push(span); a few lines ahead)

bors · 2024-01-13T07:03:15Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #118947) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

apiraino · 2024-02-01T13:46:52Z

@bvanjoi : probably still needs perf triaging. thanks!

@rustbot author

Dylan-DPC · 2024-02-18T10:03:56Z

@bvanjoi any updates on this? thanks

bvanjoi · 2024-02-19T15:52:00Z

This PR was intended to feed the span during resolution, but it unexpectedly caused a performance regression in mir_borrowck under incremental builds. Unfortunately, I'm uncertain on how to debug it locally to find an appropriate solution.

@cjgillot Do you have any thoughts or suggestions regarding this? If not, I may consider closing it...

(Perhaps we could rerun this performance test, as I have addressed the previous comments?)

Dylan-DPC · 2024-02-20T09:08:48Z

thanks let's give it a try

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rust-timer · 2024-02-20T09:08:51Z

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors · 2024-02-20T09:10:03Z

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

git checkout fix-118552 (switch to your branch)
git fetch upstream master (retrieve the latest master)
git rebase upstream/master -p (rebase on top of it)
Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
git push self fix-118552 --force-with-lease (update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Auto-merging compiler/rustc_resolve/src/lib.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_resolve/src/def_collector.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in compiler/rustc_resolve/src/def_collector.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_middle/src/hir/mod.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in compiler/rustc_middle/src/hir/mod.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_middle/src/hir/map/mod.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in compiler/rustc_middle/src/hir/map/mod.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_interface/src/queries.rs
Auto-merging compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs
warning: inexact rename detection was skipped due to too many files.
warning: you may want to set your merge.renamelimit variable to at least 1571 and retry the command.
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

Dylan-DPC · 2024-02-22T04:58:30Z

gah..

@bvanjoi you would need to resolve the conflicts so we can run another perf run

oskgo · 2024-07-26T06:16:00Z

@bvanjoi

Ping from triage: I'm closing this due to inactivity, Please reopen when you are ready to continue with this.
Note: if you are going to continue please open the PR BEFORE you push to it, else you won't be able to reopen - this is a quirk of github.
Thanks for your contribution.

@rustbot label: +S-inactive

rustbot assigned cjgillot Dec 5, 2023

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 Dec 5, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 5, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Dec 5, 2023

cjgillot reviewed Dec 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread compiler/rustc_middle/src/hir/map/mod.rs Outdated

Comment thread compiler/rustc_resolve/src/lib.rs Outdated

bvanjoi force-pushed the fix-118552 branch 2 times, most recently from 9376503 to 7a8e550 Compare December 6, 2023 06:50

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

bvanjoi force-pushed the fix-118552 branch from 7a8e550 to e4c5f03 Compare December 6, 2023 07:52

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 7, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 7, 2023

petrochenkov mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2023

resolve: Eagerly feed closure visibilities #119136

Merged

cjgillot reviewed Dec 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread compiler/rustc_middle/src/hir/map/mod.rs Outdated

Comment thread compiler/rustc_resolve/src/lib.rs

bvanjoi force-pushed the fix-118552 branch 2 times, most recently from 6043a9f to 12376e0 Compare December 24, 2023 05:16

feed def_span in resolver

77bf251

bvanjoi force-pushed the fix-118552 branch from 12376e0 to 77bf251 Compare December 25, 2023 12:58

bvanjoi commented Dec 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

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 Feb 1, 2024

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 20, 2024

oskgo closed this Jul 26, 2024

rustbot added the S-inactive Status: Inactive and waiting on the author. This is often applied to closed PRs. label Jul 26, 2024

Uh oh!

Conversation

bvanjoi commented Dec 5, 2023

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Dec 5, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Dec 5, 2023

Uh oh!

bors commented Dec 5, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Dec 5, 2023

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

oli-obk commented Dec 5, 2023

Uh oh!

cjgillot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

cjgillot commented Dec 7, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Dec 7, 2023

Uh oh!

bors commented Dec 7, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Dec 7, 2023

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

petrochenkov commented Dec 11, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bvanjoi Dec 25, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 13, 2024

Uh oh!

apiraino commented Feb 1, 2024

Uh oh!

Dylan-DPC commented Feb 18, 2024

Uh oh!

bvanjoi commented Feb 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Dylan-DPC commented Feb 20, 2024

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Feb 20, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Feb 20, 2024

Uh oh!

Dylan-DPC commented Feb 22, 2024

Uh oh!

oskgo commented Jul 26, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

11 participants

bvanjoi Dec 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading