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

Rollup of 8 pull requests #112987

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jun 24, 2023
Merged

Rollup of 8 pull requests #112987

merged 18 commits into from
Jun 24, 2023

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

ibraheemdev and others added 18 commits June 10, 2023 19:22
Implement `Sync` for `mpsc::Sender`

`mpsc::Sender` is currently `!Sync` because the previous implementation contained an optimization where the channel started out as single-producer and was dynamically upgraded on the first clone, which relied on a unique reference to the sender. This optimization is one of the main reasons the old implementation was so complex and was removed in rust-lang#93563. `mpsc::Sender` can now soundly implement `Sync`.

Note for any potential confusion, this chance does *not* add MPMC behavior. This only affects the already `Send + Clone` *sender*, not *receiver*.

It's technically possible to rely on the `!Sync` behavior in the same way as a `PhantomData<*mut T>`, but that seems very unlikely in practice. Either way, this change is insta-stable and needs an FCP.

`@rustbot` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
…=Amanieu

Bump compiler_builtins

Actually closes rust-lang#108489.

Note that the example code given [in compiler_builtins](rust-lang/compiler-builtins#527) doesn't compile on current rustc since we're still waiting for https://reviews.llvm.org/D153197 (aka `LLVM ERROR: Expected a constant shift amount!`), but it's a step forward anyway.
…compiler-errors

Stop bubbling out hidden types from the eval obligation queries

r? `@compiler-errors`

I don't know why these were added, but they are not needed anymore. The relevant test is unaffected and I didn't see anything interesting in logging that would have justified it.

This PR has no effect on the new solver behaviour of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/cf2dff2b1e3fa55fa5415d524200070d0d7aacfe/tests/ui/impl-trait/issue-99642.rs (which is overflow) and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/cf2dff2b1e3fa55fa5415d524200070d0d7aacfe/tests/ui/impl-trait/issue-99642-2.rs (which is "unstable certainty ICE")
…emjay

Don't emit same goal as input during `wf::unnormalized_obligations`

r? `@aliemjay` cc `@lcnr`

I accidentally pruned the logic to handle `WF(?0)` when writing `wf::unnormalized_obligations`.

idk if you wanted to construct a test first, but this is an obvious fix. Copied the comment from above.

Fixes rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#36
…=jyn514

Make sure to include default en-US ftl resources for `rustc_error` crate

Fixes rust-lang#112928
…er-errors

Fix return type notation errors with -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty

This just adjust the way we check for RPITITs and uses the new helper method to do the "old" and "new" check at once.

r? `@compiler-errors`
…er-errors

Fix return type notation associated type suggestion when -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty

This avoid suggesting the associated types generated for RPITITs when the one the code refers to doesn't exist and rustc looks for a suggestion.

r? `@compiler-errors`
Update cargo

8 commits in 4cebd130ebca3bc219180a54f3e26cc1b14a91de..03bc66b55c290324bd46eb22e369c8fae1908f91
2023-06-21 18:59:29 +0000 to 2023-06-23 23:27:46 +0000
- fix(script): Be quiet on programmatic output (rust-lang/cargo#12305)
- docs(unstable): Update script documentation (rust-lang/cargo#12308)
- cargo script example needs nightly -Zscript feature (rust-lang/cargo#12287)
- fix(script): Process config relative to script, not CWD (rust-lang/cargo#12303)
- -Znext-lockfile-bump: Don't suggest using -Z on stable (rust-lang/cargo#12302)
- build(deps): bump openssl from 0.10.54 to 0.10.55 (rust-lang/cargo#12300)
- Add `.toml` file extension restriction for `-Zconfig-include` (rust-lang/cargo#12298)
- docs(unstable): Point stable-unstable docs to nightly docs (rust-lang/cargo#12299)

r? `@ghost`
@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-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jun 24, 2023
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=8

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 24, 2023

📌 Commit d28f037 has been approved by compiler-errors

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 Jun 24, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 24, 2023

⌛ Testing commit d28f037 with merge e0ba2d0...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 24, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing e0ba2d0 to master...

1 similar comment
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 24, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing e0ba2d0 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 24, 2023
@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 24, 2023
@bors bors merged commit e0ba2d0 into rust-lang:master Jun 24, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.72.0 milestone Jun 24, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e0ba2d0): 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)
0.6% [0.3%, 0.8%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.4% [1.3%, 1.5%] 6
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.3%, 0.8%] 7

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)
2.0% [0.9%, 2.8%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1
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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-5.4% [-6.6%, -4.5%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 661.747s -> 661.562s (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jun 24, 2023
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

testing perf in #112963 (comment)

@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jun 24, 2023

Could also be some noise stabilizing, like the swing back around normal following #112891

image

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

Ah, well #112963 also seems to reproduce the same regression. Not sure if it's noise or alternatively could also be the query cache shifting around a bit..

Anyways, #112963 is strictly more correct, so if it isn't noise then I don't think we should revert that and there's probably nothing to do to get the perf back easily.

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jun 27, 2023
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I think it's likely this is just noise.

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. rollup A PR which is a rollup 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-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.