-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Remove cgu_reuse_tracker from Session #115964
Conversation
(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
These commits modify the If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #113301) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
6a2eb57
to
43ac2cf
Compare
Rebased |
) | ||
.0 | ||
} | ||
CguReuse::PreLto => unreachable!(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you add a message to the unreachable? That's not immediate that it comes from determine_cgu_reuse
never emitting that variant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
determine_cgu_reuse
can emit PreLto
, but cg_clif currently doesn't support LTO and without LTO only No
and PostLto
are emitted by determine_cgu_reuse
.
@@ -727,7 +734,6 @@ pub fn codegen_crate<B: ExtraBackendMethods>( | |||
ongoing_codegen.check_for_errors(tcx.sess); | |||
|
|||
let cgu_reuse = cgu_reuse[i]; | |||
tcx.sess.cgu_reuse_tracker.set_actual_reuse(cgu.name().as_str(), cgu_reuse); | |||
|
|||
match cgu_reuse { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is PreLto
reachable in this match? cgu_reuse
comes from determine_cgu_reuse
too, doesn't it?
These commits modify the If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #116569) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
This removes a bit of global mutable state
a6bd995
to
f0b5820
Compare
@bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (130ff8c): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesResultsThis 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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 628.455s -> 628.344s (-0.02%) |
50: Automated pull from upstream `master` r=Dajamante a=github-actions[bot] This PR pulls the following changes from the upstream repository: * rust-lang/rust#116619 * rust-lang/rust#115964 * rust-lang/rust#116391 * rust-lang/rust#116510 * rust-lang/rust#116671 * rust-lang/rust#116669 * rust-lang/rust#116654 * rust-lang/rust#116642 * rust-lang/rust#116625 * rust-lang/rust#116593 * rust-lang/rust#116649 * rust-lang/rust#116600 * rust-lang/rust#116628 Co-authored-by: Nadrieril <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Scott McMurray <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bjorn3 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nicholas Nethercote <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Trevor Gross <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Georg Semmler <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Guillaume Gomez <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Gurinder Singh <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bors <[email protected]>
fwiw this causes an ice now when manually compiling some of the incremental tests without passing
|
I think this is because |
This removes a bit of global mutable state.
It will now miss post-lto cgu reuse when ThinLTO determines that a cgu doesn't get changed, but there weren't any tests for this anyway and a test for it would be fragile to the exact implementation of ThinLTO in LLVM.