Skip to content

Conversation

zetanumbers
Copy link
Contributor

@zetanumbers zetanumbers commented Sep 8, 2025

Skip items which forward typeck to their ancestor.

Should remove some potential but unnecessary typeck query waits, hence might improve performance for the parallel frontend.

Thanks to @ywxt for a fix suggestion

Fixes #141951

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 8, 2025

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@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. labels Sep 8, 2025
@ywxt
Copy link
Contributor

ywxt commented Sep 8, 2025

Perhas should have a test under tests/ui/parallel-rustc.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Sep 8, 2025

r? compiler

@rustbot rustbot assigned lcnr and unassigned jieyouxu Sep 8, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Sep 8, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

do we still use typeck for non-roots? I think we do 🤔 🤷

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2025
Skip typeck for items w/o their own typeck context
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 8, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 8, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3da72c7 (3da72c75439245c034acfdf05ff2423fd1256d8c, parent: beeb8e3af54295ba494c250e84ecda4c2c5d85ff)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (3da72c7): 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)
-1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
4.0% [3.2%, 4.7%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 4.0% [3.2%, 4.7%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.2%)

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)
-2.2% [-2.2%, -2.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 466.876s -> 469.127s (0.48%)
Artifact size: 387.41 MiB -> 387.40 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 8, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Sep 9, 2025

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 9, 2025

📌 Commit 7e826fb 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 Sep 9, 2025
@Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor

Giving this a rollup=never PR a minor priority boost over non-rolled-up iffy PRs.

@bors p=1

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 12, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 7e826fb with merge 8e2ed71...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 12, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 8e2ed71 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 12, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 8e2ed71 into rust-lang:master Sep 12, 2025
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.91.0 milestone Sep 12, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

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 2a9bacf (parent) -> 8e2ed71 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 24 test diffs

24 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 8e2ed71effd5f81bff319c0c7adaca42084e2a71 --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. pr-check-1: 1350.8s -> 1852.4s (37.1%)
  2. dist-apple-various: 3152.1s -> 4299.1s (36.4%)
  3. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2596.4s -> 3059.6s (17.8%)
  4. aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 2159.1s -> 2530.2s (17.2%)
  5. i686-gnu-2: 5391.1s -> 6265.8s (16.2%)
  6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 3804.6s -> 4309.7s (13.3%)
  7. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 5482.1s -> 6173.8s (12.6%)
  8. aarch64-apple: 6000.2s -> 6738.2s (12.3%)
  9. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 7187.0s -> 8001.4s (11.3%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3321.8s -> 3691.5s (11.1%)
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 (8e2ed71): 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 (secondary -3.2%)

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)
-3.2% [-4.2%, -2.2%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary 2.9%, 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)
2.9% [2.1%, 4.0%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.8% [2.6%, 3.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.9% [2.1%, 4.0%] 3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 467.159s -> 467.415s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 387.82 MiB -> 387.84 MiB (0.00%)

@zetanumbers zetanumbers deleted the fix-141951 branch September 15, 2025 11:58
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.

ICE: typeof called on const argument's anon const before the const argument was lowered
8 participants