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

Remove DefId's Partial/Ord impls #122832

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Mar 28, 2024
Merged

Remove DefId's Partial/Ord impls #122832

merged 20 commits into from
Mar 28, 2024

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented Mar 21, 2024

work towards #90317

based on #122824 and #122820

r? @michaelwoerister

@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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 21, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 21, 2024

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 21, 2024

@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 Mar 21, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#122832 - oli-obk:no_ord_def_id3, r=<try>
c92b8f5 
Remove `DefId`'s `Partial/Ord` impls

work towards rust-lang#90317

based on rust-lang#122824 and rust-lang#122820

r? `@michaelwoerister`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 21, 2024

⌛ Trying commit e7667c7 with merge c92b8f5...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 21, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c92b8f5 (c92b8f5e8c9b0a2f7487d79b8cc38e503c5a8b2f)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c92b8f5): 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)		 2.6% [0.6%, 13.3%] 14
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.2% [0.5%, 5.9%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.6% [0.6%, 13.3%] 14

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -4.5% [-6.1%, -3.0%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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)		 3.3% [1.4%, 9.9%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 1.8% [1.8%, 1.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.3% [1.4%, 9.9%] 6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 671.97s -> 671.926s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 314.87 MiB -> 312.80 MiB (-0.66%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Mar 21, 2024
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 21, 2024

Only rustdoc regressed

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 22, 2024

@rust-lang/rustdoc how do I fix rustdoc-js-std tests? I have no idea what the failure is telling me:

Testing basic.js ... /home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1
"use strict";if(!Array.prototype.toSpliced){Array.prototype.toSpliced=function(){const me=this.slice();Array.prototype.splice.apply(me,arguments);return me}}(function(){const itemTypes=["keyword","primitive","mod","externcrate","import","struct","enum","fn","type","static","trait","impl","tymethod","method","structfield","variant","macro","associatedtype","constant","associatedconstant","union","foreigntype","existential","attr","derive","traitalias","generic",];const longItemTypes=["keyword","primitive type","module","extern crate","re-export","struct","enum","function","type alias","static","trait","","trait method","method","struct field","enum variant","macro","assoc type","constant","assoc const","union","foreign type","existential type","attribute macro","derive macro","trait alias",];const TY_GENERIC=itemTypes.indexOf("generic");const ROOT_PATH=typeof window!=="undefined"?window.rootPath:"../";const

TypeError: Array.from(...).flat(...) is not a function or its return value is not iterable
    at unifyFunctionTypeIsUnboxCandidate (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:27850)
    at unifyFunctionTypes (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:22166)
    at checkType (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:28721)
    at checkIfInList (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:28049)
    at unifyFunctionTypeIsUnboxCandidate (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:27619)
    at unifyFunctionTypes (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:22166)
    at checkType (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:28721)
    at checkIfInList (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:28049)
    at handleSingleArg (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:32020)
    at innerRunQuery (/home/ubuntu/rustc/rust10/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/static.files/search-42d8da7a6b9792c2.js:1:36621)

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

In this case it means that your changes broke the search index generation apparently. Let me take a look at your code if I can see anything obvious.

@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR, @oli-obk! Does this need a rebase now that #122824 and #122820 have been merged?

@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

This PR looks great! Thanks, @oli-obk 🙂

@GuillaumeGomez, did you see anything that would explain the rustdoc test failure?

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2024

did you see anything that would explain the rustdoc test failure?

I worked around it, so there's no failure anymore in this PR. I'm coordinating with guillaume to fix it in a separate PR

@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

The rustdoc perf regressions are not ideal, but I don't think they should block merging.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2024

📌 Commit bd6a96f has been approved by michaelwoerister

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 Mar 27, 2024
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 27, 2024

The rustdoc perf regressions are not ideal, but I don't think they should block merging.

Oh I forgot to test, but they should be gone now, or at least smaller

@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

Fingers crossed 🙂

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2024

⌛ Testing commit bd6a96f with merge 2781687...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: michaelwoerister
Pushing 2781687 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 28, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 2781687 into rust-lang:master Mar 28, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.79.0 milestone Mar 28, 2024
This was referenced Mar 28, 2024
Closed
Merged
Merged
@oli-obk oli-obk deleted the no_ord_def_id3 branch March 28, 2024 09:05
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (2781687): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)		 1.7% [1.0%, 2.6%] 12
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.8% [-3.8%, -3.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.7% [1.0%, 2.6%] 12

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)		 1.2% [0.4%, 2.3%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.2% [0.4%, 2.3%] 7

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 671.737s -> 668.256s (-0.52%)
Artifact size: 315.68 MiB -> 315.62 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Mar 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@michaelwoerister michaelwoerister michaelwoerister left review comments

Assignees

@michaelwoerister michaelwoerister

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. 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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.79.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@oli-obk @rustbot @rust-timer @bors @rust-log-analyzer @GuillaumeGomez @michaelwoerister