do not emit overlap errors for impls failing the orphan check by lcnr · Pull Req...

Copy link

Contributor

lcnr commented on Oct 21

rust-timer commented on Oct 21

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors commented on Oct 21

Trying commit 7d5a76d with merge 1c8704c...

This comment has been hidden.

bors commented on Oct 21

Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1c8704c (1c8704cd0aa20806f32471eb07a5af01fa99f8d0)

rust-timer commented on Oct 21

bors commented on Oct 21

Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1c8704c (1c8704cd0aa20806f32471eb07a5af01fa99f8d0)

lcnr commented on Oct 21 •

ok, const-and-non-const-impl.rs now has three more "type annotations needed" errors. The reason they were hidden before is a use of err_count() which is pretty fundamentally broken wrt the query system.

before we had

x = new InferCtxt
...
specialization_graph_of() // this errors and increases the error count
...
x.is_tainted_by_errors() // returns `true`

but we now have

orphan_check_impl() // this errors and increases the error count
...
x = new InferCtxt
...
specialization_graph_of() // this doesn't error because of the error in `orphan_check_impl` above
...
x.is_tainted_by_errors() // now returns `false`

Don't think that that should block this PR and believe that we stop using err_count like this long term.

rust-timer commented on Oct 21

Finished benchmarking commit (1c8704c): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to large relevant mixed results in compiler performance.

• Small improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.6% on incr-unchanged builds of tuple-stress)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 2.4% on full builds of inflate)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

lcnr commented on Oct 21

rust-timer commented on Oct 21

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors commented on Oct 21

Trying commit 9eb21cf with merge 244bc66...

bors commented on Oct 21

Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 244bc66 (244bc66664402a4b88605f32a857fa71310bcc1d)

rust-timer commented on Oct 21

rust-timer commented on Oct 21

Finished benchmarking commit (244bc66): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to large relevant mixed results in compiler performance.

• Small improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.7% on incr-unchanged builds of tuple-stress)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 2.4% on full builds of inflate)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

lcnr commented on Oct 23

lcnr commented 16 days ago

alright, sure love a 2.4 % perf regression to be noise xx

should now be ready for merge i guess

bors commented 13 days ago

The latest upstream changes (presumably #86041) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

nikomatsakis commented 12 days ago

@bors r+

bors commented 12 days ago

Commit f55ff41 has been approved by nikomatsakis

bors commented 12 days ago

Testing commit f55ff41 with merge 1e3c735...

bors commented 12 days ago

Test timed out

rust-log-analyzer commented 12 days ago

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

lcnr commented 12 days ago

@bors retry

bors commented 11 days ago

Testing commit f55ff41 with merge 1d34cb4...

bors commented 11 days ago

Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikomatsakis
Pushing 1d34cb4 to master...

rust-timer commented 11 days ago

Finished benchmarking commit (1d34cb4): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to moderate relevant mixed results in compiler performance.

• Small improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.5% on incr-unchanged builds of helloworld)
• Moderate regression in instruction counts (up to 0.5% on incr-patched: println builds of style-servo)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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

matthewjasper commented 8 days ago

Perf "regressions" disappeared when the next PR was merged