Skip to content

Conversation

JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

This is needed for #85350 not to be passed.
r? @jackh726

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 4, 2021
@jackh726
Copy link
Member

jackh726 commented Jul 4, 2021

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 4, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 4, 2021

⌛ Trying commit 93882e4 with merge faffbef7d36114148cbd40b384c2bf707d799961...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 4, 2021

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: faffbef7d36114148cbd40b384c2bf707d799961 (faffbef7d36114148cbd40b384c2bf707d799961)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued faffbef7d36114148cbd40b384c2bf707d799961 with parent 308fc23, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking try commit (faffbef7d36114148cbd40b384c2bf707d799961): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any significant changes.

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.

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

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 4, 2021
@jackh726
Copy link
Member

jackh726 commented Jul 4, 2021

Okay, mostly perf neutral. Maybe a very slight regression, but not really significant.

Given that this prevents potential future bugs, @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 4, 2021

📌 Commit 93882e4 has been approved by jackh726

@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 Jul 4, 2021
@klensy
Copy link
Contributor

klensy commented Jul 4, 2021

Perf's max-rss green for most tests, why this changed?

I mean, changing debug_assert to assert gives positive effect, if this perf results not a random.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Jul 5, 2021

@klensy probably the compiler happened to pick different CGU partitioning

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 5, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 93882e4 with merge 44860d1...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 5, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing 44860d1 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 5, 2021
@bors bors merged commit 44860d1 into rust-lang:master Jul 5, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.55.0 milestone Jul 5, 2021
@JohnTitor JohnTitor deleted the convert-to-actual-assert branch July 5, 2021 11:35
@flip1995
Copy link
Member

@jackh726 @JohnTitor With this change, we started to see ICEs in Clippy. E.g. #7447 and this change.

In both cases this ICE came from calling cx.tcx.layout_of(ty) without checking if ty.has_escaping_bound_vars(). Is the layout_of thing a red herring? If this can only come from calling layout_of then my fix would be to just call ty.has_escaping_bound_vars() before calling layout_of in Clippy everytime.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2021
Update Clippy

This is an out-of-cycle Clippy update, to fix 3 ICEs before the release (This should be merged before beta is branched):

rust-lang/rust-clippy#7470
rust-lang/rust-clippy#7471
rust-lang/rust-clippy#7473

cc `@jackh726` `@JohnTitor` rust-lang/rust-clippy#7470 was caused by rust-lang#86867. I saw the same ICE in the last rustup for Clippy though, so this might be a more general problem. Is there something we should check before calling `layout_of`? Should we always check for `ty.has_escaping_bound_vars()` before calling `layout_of`? Or is this overkill?

r? `@Manishearth`
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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants