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

Fix order of implementations in the "implementations on foreign types" section #117521

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 2, 2023

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Fixes #117391.

We forgot to run the sort_by_cached_key on this section. This fixes it.

r? @notriddle

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 2, 2023
@notriddle
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 2, 2023

📌 Commit 2e4a36b has been approved by notriddle

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 Nov 2, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 2, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 2e4a36b with merge b20f40d...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 2, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing b20f40d to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 2, 2023
@bors bors merged commit b20f40d into rust-lang:master Nov 2, 2023
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.75.0 milestone Nov 2, 2023
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the impl-on-foreign-order branch November 2, 2023 19:53
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b20f40d): 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)
2.4% [0.7%, 3.3%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.4% [0.7%, 3.3%] 3

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% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
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)
2.2% [1.4%, 3.0%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.2% [1.4%, 3.0%] 2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 636.797s -> 637.769s (0.15%)
Artifact size: 304.44 MiB -> 304.51 MiB (0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Nov 2, 2023
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

That's a 3.35% perf drop in diesel. :-/

Most other benchmarks don't seem affected. I think we can't do much to improve this situation unfortunately...

bors-ferrocene bot added a commit to ferrocene/ferrocene that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2023
82: Automated pull from upstream `master` r=tshepang a=github-actions[bot]


This PR pulls the following changes from the upstream repository:

* rust-lang/rust#117313
* rust-lang/rust#117131
* rust-lang/rust#117134
* rust-lang/rust#117471
* rust-lang/rust#117521
* rust-lang/rust#117513
  * rust-lang/rust#117512
  * rust-lang/rust#117509
  * rust-lang/rust#117495
  * rust-lang/rust#117394
* rust-lang/rust#117466
* rust-lang/rust#117204
* rust-lang/rust#117386
* rust-lang/rust#117506



Co-authored-by: Nicholas Nethercote <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: roblabla <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael Goulet <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: massivebird <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bors <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Zalathar <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: lcnr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Joshua Liebow-Feeser <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Matthias Krüger <[email protected]>
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Nov 7, 2023

  • the primary regressions are to diesel-doc-full (3.35%), syn-opt-full (3.07%) and serde-doc-full (0.69%).
  • the syn-opt-full "regression" is noise; the other two primary benchmarks are doc; this is rustdoc fix and that team has already said they don't think they can do much to address the situation there.
  • marking as triaged.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Nov 7, 2023
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. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Trait implementations order random
6 participants