-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Structurally resolve in adjust_for_branches
#133559
Structurally resolve in adjust_for_branches
#133559
Conversation
4a70611
to
11908bc
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
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.
looking through the api of Expectation
, there's also fn resolve
which I believe should also normalize with the new solver and we can probably craft tests for all/mosts its use-sites.
adjust_for_branches
can then simply match on self.resolve(fcx, expr.span)
🤔
11908bc
to
28c13d2
Compare
@rustbot ready So, structurally resolving means that we now eagerly process obligations which affects our ability to deduplicate reported predicates. Diagnostics have gotten kinda bad for RPITs in the new solver and with GCE, but I guess we could fix that later. @bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
…-adjust-for-branch, r=<try> Structurally resolve before `adjust_for_branches` r? lcnr
/// there is no expected type or resolution is not possible (e.g., | ||
/// no constraints yet present), just returns `self`. | ||
fn resolve(self, fcx: &FnCtxt<'a, 'tcx>) -> Expectation<'tcx> { | ||
pub(super) fn structurally_resolve( |
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.
I decided to rename these methods to make it clear that they structurally resolve.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (83a6b38): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text belowBenchmarking 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 @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis 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.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 1.0%)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.
CyclesResults (primary 1.5%, secondary 4.0%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 771.899s -> 773.602s (0.22%) |
[DO NOT MERGE] bootstrap with `-Znext-solver=globally` A revival of rust-lang#124812. Current status: ~~`./x.py b --stage 2` passes 🎉~~ `try` builds succeed 🎉 🎉 🎉 ### commits - rust-lang#133643 - ce66d92 is a rebased version of rust-lang#125334, unsure whether I actually want to land this PR for now * rust-lang#133559 * rust-lang#133558 r? `@ghost`
28c13d2
to
cfe3a82
Compare
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (e77448a): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text belowBenchmarking 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 @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis 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.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (secondary 2.7%)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.
CyclesResults (secondary -3.0%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 769.678s -> 768.393s (-0.17%) |
cfe3a82
to
0cf9370
Compare
I think perf is insignificant but I guess I could gate the structural resolve behind |
nah @bors r+ |
adjust_for_branches
adjust_for_branches
…-adjust-for-branch, r=lcnr Structurally resolve in `adjust_for_branches` r? lcnr
💥 Test timed out |
…-adjust-for-branch, r=lcnr Structurally resolve in `adjust_for_branches` r? lcnr
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
:( @bors retry |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (acf4842): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis 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.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (secondary -1.0%)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.
CyclesResults (secondary -2.3%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 769.915s -> 769.005s (-0.12%) |
r? lcnr