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

Stabilize if_let_rescope #131984

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2024

Conversation

dingxiangfei2009
Copy link
Contributor

Close #131154
Tracked by #124085

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 20, 2024

r? @TaKO8Ki

rustbot has assigned @TaKO8Ki.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@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 Oct 20, 2024
@dingxiangfei2009
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rustbot labels +A-edition-2024

@rustbot rustbot added the A-edition-2024 Area: The 2024 edition label Oct 20, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ declare_features! (
(accepted, irrefutable_let_patterns, "1.33.0", Some(44495)),
/// Allows `#[instruction_set(_)]` attribute.
(accepted, isa_attribute, "1.67.0", Some(74727)),
/// Rescoping temporaries in `if let` to align with Rust 2024.
(accepted, if_let_rescope, "1.83.0", Some(124085)),
Copy link
Contributor

@ehuss ehuss Oct 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Aside from being sorted, this should also probably use CURRENT_RUSTC_VERSION.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Applied

@traviscross
Copy link
Contributor

r? @lcnr

Given that you had a look at the related...

...it may make sense for you to have a look at this also.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 23, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #132027) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Copy link
Contributor

@lcnr lcnr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

r=me on the impl, not gonna actually approve this myself while I am arguing about the current design in #131154 :>

@traviscross
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r=traviscross,lcnr

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 28, 2024

📌 Commit 6d569f7 has been approved by traviscross,lcnr

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 Oct 28, 2024
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024
…rescope, r=traviscross,lcnr

Stabilize if_let_rescope

Close rust-lang#131154
Tracked by rust-lang#124085
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#131375 (compiler: apply clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr for CI)
 - rust-lang#131984 (Stabilize if_let_rescope)
 - rust-lang#132151 (Ensure that resume arg outlives region bound for coroutines)
 - rust-lang#132161 ([StableMIR] A few fixes to pretty printing)
 - rust-lang#132194 (Collect item bounds for RPITITs from trait where clauses just like associated types)
 - rust-lang#132233 (Split `boxed.rs` into a few modules)
 - rust-lang#132270 (clarified doc for `std::fs::OpenOptions.truncate()`)
 - rust-lang#132284 (Remove my ping for rustdoc/clean/types.rs)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
…rescope, r=traviscross,lcnr

Stabilize if_let_rescope

Close rust-lang#131154
Tracked by rust-lang#124085
workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
…rescope, r=traviscross,lcnr

Stabilize if_let_rescope

Close rust-lang#131154
Tracked by rust-lang#124085
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 6 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#131984 (Stabilize if_let_rescope)
 - rust-lang#132151 (Ensure that resume arg outlives region bound for coroutines)
 - rust-lang#132157 (Remove detail from label/note that is already available in other note)
 - rust-lang#132274 (Cleanup op lookup in HIR typeck)
 - rust-lang#132319 (cg_llvm: Clean up FFI calls for setting module flags)
 - rust-lang#132321 (xous: sync: remove `rustc_const_stable` attribute on Condvar and Mutex new())

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 5d6c499 into rust-lang:master Oct 29, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.84.0 milestone Oct 29, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131984 - dingxiangfei2009:stabilize-if-let-rescope, r=traviscross,lcnr

Stabilize if_let_rescope

Close rust-lang#131154
Tracked by rust-lang#124085
@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Oct 30, 2024

@rust-timer build 701efc4

Checking if this might be the source of the regression in #132326.

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (701efc4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.8% [0.2%, 2.0%] 105
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.5% [0.1%, 4.4%] 69
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.8% [0.2%, 2.0%] 105

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.9%, secondary -1.8%)

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)
-2.9% [-3.7%, -2.1%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.8% [-1.8%, -1.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.9% [-3.7%, -2.1%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.2%)

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)
2.2% [2.2%, 2.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 784.999s -> 785.94s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 333.64 MiB -> 333.59 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Oct 30, 2024
@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Oct 30, 2024

Yeah so this is quite the regression on instruction counts. Doesn't look so terrible on cycles though. The detailed results show the lint_mod query taking more time, could that be relevant? (it can also be something completely different though, or just an effect of this change in general).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-edition-2024 Area: The 2024 edition perf-regression Performance regression. 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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Proposal: stabilize if_let_rescope for Edition 2024
10 participants