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 3 pull requests #118579

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 3, 2023
Merged

Rollup of 3 pull requests #118579

merged 8 commits into from
Dec 3, 2023

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

GuillaumeGomez and others added 8 commits December 1, 2023 11:23
When we extract coverage spans from MIR, we try to "un-expand" them back to
spans that are inside the function's body span.

In cases where that doesn't succeed, the current code just swaps in the entire
body span instead. But that tends to result in coverage spans that are
completely unrelated to the control flow of the affected code, so it's better
to just discard those spans.
Instead of allowing `rustc::potential_query_instability` on the whole
crate we go over each lint and allow it individually if it is safe to
do. Turns out all instances were safe to allow in this crate.
…g-item-decl, r=notriddle

[rustdoc] Add highlighting for comments in items declaration

Fixes rust-lang#117555.

So after the discussion in rust-lang#117643, the outcome was that having the comments in the item declaration at the same level (in term of color) as the rest of the code was actually a bit distracting and could be improved.

The current highlighting color for comments is "lighter" than the rest and I think it fits perfectly to improve the current situation. With this, we now have different "levels" which makes it easier to read and filter out what we want when reading the items declaration.

Here's a screenshot:

![image](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/assets/3050060/dbd98029-e98b-4997-9a89-6b823eaac9a4)

r? `@notriddle`
coverage: Skip spans that can't be un-expanded back to the function body

When we extract coverage spans from MIR, we try to "un-expand" them back to spans that are inside the function's body span.

In cases where that doesn't succeed, the current code just swaps in the entire body span instead. But that tends to result in coverage spans that are completely unrelated to the control flow of the affected code, so it's better to just discard those spans.

---

Extracted from rust-lang#118305, since this is a general improvement that isn't specific to branch coverage.

---

`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
rustc_session: Address all `rustc::potential_query_instability` lints

Instead of allowing `rustc::potential_query_instability` on the whole crate we go over each lint and allow it individually if it is safe to do. Turns out all instances were safe to allow in this crate.

Part of rust-lang#84447 which is **E-help-wanted**.
@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. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Dec 3, 2023
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=3

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 3, 2023

📌 Commit caeaf31 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

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 Dec 3, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 3, 2023

⌛ Testing commit caeaf31 with merge 9fad685...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 3, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing 9fad685 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 3, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 9fad685 into rust-lang:master Dec 3, 2023
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.76.0 milestone Dec 3, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#117869 [rustdoc] Add highlighting for comments in items declaration 92531fca0f4f6041c8ab4292584418f71904a01c (link)
#118525 coverage: Skip spans that can't be un-expanded back to the … bdec06cd94f485f4b4d9dbb5487f489e3ca999b8 (link)
#118574 rustc_session: Address all `rustc::potential_query_instabil… 77ba34c750c8160ed367c79ac4fd02a2b8f70847 (link)

previous master: d12dc74a2c

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (9fad685): 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)
2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.3% [-2.3%, -2.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1

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)
-2.4% [-2.6%, -2.1%] 8
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 673.016s -> 672.475s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 314.11 MiB -> 314.11 MiB (0.00%)

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-22kn8sa branch March 16, 2024 18:18
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-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.

7 participants