MIR: Stop needing an explicit BB for otherwise:unreachable by scottmcm · Pull Request #124188 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)
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 andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
| let terminator = match (num_targets, otherwise_unreachable) { |
| // If all targets are unreachable, we can be unreachable as well. |
| (1, true) => TerminatorKind::Unreachable, |
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This whole section I couldn't find a simple update, so please check the new logic carefully.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request
This comment has been minimized.
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d8f8976 (d8f8976ab3cbf35ab4e4d38ae51cee307c3a2f52)
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (d8f8976): comparison URL.
Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED
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 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 @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-perf +perf-regression
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) | 0.6% | [0.2%, 1.0%] | 6 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | 2.7% | [1.7%, 5.2%] | 8 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | -0.8% | [-0.8%, -0.8%] | 1 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -0.9% | [-1.3%, -0.7%] | 3 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | 0.4% | [-0.8%, 1.0%] | 7 |
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) | 3.0% | [0.1%, 6.0%] | 2 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | - | - | 0 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | -2.2% | [-3.7%, -0.8%] | 3 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -2.7% | [-2.7%, -2.7%] | 1 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | -0.1% | [-3.7%, 6.0%] | 5 |
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) | 2.4% | [1.0%, 3.1%] | 11 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | 3.9% | [0.9%, 7.0%] | 5 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | - | - | 0 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -2.0% | [-2.0%, -2.0%] | 1 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | 2.4% | [1.0%, 3.1%] | 11 |
Binary size
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) | 0.4% | [0.1%, 1.9%] | 57 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | 1.6% | [0.1%, 5.3%] | 15 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | -0.2% | [-1.2%, -0.0%] | 22 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -0.2% | [-0.4%, -0.0%] | 8 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | 0.2% | [-1.2%, 1.9%] | 79 |
Bootstrap: 670.134s -> 670.046s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 315.30 MiB -> 315.35 MiB (0.02%)
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
and removed S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
So many places to update :D
For this PR I tried to keep things doing essentially the same thing as before. No new passes to try to use it more, no change to MIR building for exhaustive matches, etc.
That said, UnreachableProp still picks it up, and thus there's still a bunch of otherwise arms removed and unreachable blocks that no longer show.
This comment has been minimized.
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5ed2b42 (5ed2b4240c073e252a4ea1aed240628cbb282f5e)
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (5ed2b42): comparison URL.
Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below
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 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 @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-perf +perf-regression
Instruction count
This 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.
| mean | range | count | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regressions ❌ (primary) | 0.6% | [0.4%, 0.7%] | 3 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | 0.6% | [0.2%, 1.0%] | 10 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | -0.2% | [-0.2%, -0.2%] | 1 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -0.3% | [-0.3%, -0.2%] | 5 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | 0.4% | [-0.2%, 0.7%] | 4 |
Max RSS (memory usage)
Results (primary 1.1%, secondary -0.2%)
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) | 4.7% | [1.3%, 7.8%] | 6 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | 2.2% | [2.0%, 2.7%] | 3 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | -4.4% | [-5.8%, -2.6%] | 4 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -2.6% | [-2.8%, -2.3%] | 3 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | 1.1% | [-5.8%, 7.8%] | 10 |
Cycles
This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.
Binary size
Results (primary -0.0%, secondary 0.4%)
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) | 0.2% | [0.0%, 0.9%] | 16 |
| Regressions ❌ (secondary) | 3.3% | [0.0%, 6.5%] | 2 |
| Improvements ✅ (primary) | -0.1% | [-0.5%, -0.0%] | 33 |
| Improvements ✅ (secondary) | -0.2% | [-0.5%, -0.0%] | 11 |
| All ❌✅ (primary) | -0.0% | [-0.5%, 0.9%] | 49 |
Bootstrap: 763.24s -> 762.548s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 325.59 MiB -> 324.97 MiB (-0.19%)
Labels
Performance regression.
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.