Skip to content

Conversation

@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

The point is to avoid clearing the CFG cache as often.

r? @ghost for perf

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 27, 2025
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2025
Refactor remove_noop_landing_pads in two loops.
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 27, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 27, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 5213325 (5213325055e9098e603acc425fb95c1d0f350769, parent: ade84871f718ea20a6460d28e82290353b4bf3d2)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (5213325): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.2% [-0.2%, -0.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -1.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.0% [-3.0%, -3.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 469.268s -> 471.818s (0.54%)
Artifact size: 388.12 MiB -> 388.15 MiB (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 27, 2025
@cjgillot cjgillot marked this pull request as ready for review September 28, 2025 04:45
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 28, 2025

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Sep 28, 2025
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? compiler


// This is a post-order traversal, so that if A post-dominates B
// then A will be visited before B.
for &bb in body.basic_blocks.reverse_postorder().iter().rev() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why body.basic_blocks.reverse_postorder().iter().rev() instead** of traversal::postorder(body)?

r=me otherwise

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

94b2c30 uses traversal::postorder, which simplifies some things too.

@lcnr lcnr added S-waiting-on-author 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 Sep 30, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 4, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@cjgillot cjgillot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Oct 4, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Oct 6, 2025

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 6, 2025

📌 Commit 94b2c30 has been approved by lcnr

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 Oct 6, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 7, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 94b2c30 with merge d773bd0...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 7, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing d773bd0 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Oct 7, 2025
@bors bors merged commit d773bd0 into rust-lang:master Oct 7, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.92.0 milestone Oct 7, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 7, 2025

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing ff5be13 (parent) -> d773bd0 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard d773bd07d63a74adcf25ea5f4aae986be94cac5e --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. aarch64-apple: 9667.0s -> 6935.4s (-28.3%)
  2. dist-x86_64-apple: 8503.2s -> 6142.2s (-27.8%)
  3. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 3106.3s -> 2618.6s (-15.7%)
  4. i686-gnu-2: 6426.8s -> 5441.2s (-15.3%)
  5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 2731.0s -> 2360.8s (-13.6%)
  6. dist-x86_64-msvc-alt: 9571.9s -> 10835.9s (13.2%)
  7. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 8186.1s -> 7179.9s (-12.3%)
  8. arm-android: 6418.5s -> 5878.8s (-8.4%)
  9. aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 2405.9s -> 2217.6s (-7.8%)
  10. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4225.7s -> 3908.5s (-7.5%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d773bd0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.4% [-0.6%, -0.1%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.0% [1.0%, 1.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 473.87s -> 473.455s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 388.40 MiB -> 388.39 MiB (-0.00%)

@cjgillot cjgillot deleted the split-nop-landing branch October 7, 2025 10:15
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. 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.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants