-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
eagerly compute sub_relations
again
#140375
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 and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
cb71df2
to
a0fef49
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
a0fef49
to
46487b0
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
46487b0
to
54a32a1
Compare
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
eagerly compute `sub_relations` again We still only using them for diagnostics with the old solver. We could use them for cycle detection in generalization and it seems desirable to do so in the future. However, this is unsound with the old trait solver as its cache does not track these `sub_relations` in any way. We would also need to consider them when canonicalizing as otherwise instantiating the canonical response may fail. Necessary for type inference guidance due to not-yet defined opaque types, cc rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#182. r? `@compiler-errors`
611d7ae
to
26f4ee0
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
eagerly compute `sub_relations` again We still only using them for diagnostics with the old solver. We could use them for cycle detection in generalization and it seems desirable to do so in the future. However, this is unsound with the old trait solver as its cache does not track these `sub_relations` in any way. We would also need to consider them when canonicalizing as otherwise instantiating the canonical response may fail. Necessary for type inference guidance due to not-yet defined opaque types, cc rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#182. r? `@compiler-errors`
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (e184142): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text belowBenchmarking 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 @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis 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.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -0.6%, secondary -4.5%)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.
CyclesResults (primary 0.0%, secondary -1.6%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 765.701s -> 765.069s (-0.08%) |
While still only using them for diagnostics. We could use them for cycle detection in generalization and it seems desirable to do so in the future. However, this is unsound with the old trait solver as its cache does not track these `sub_relations` in any way. We would also need to consider them when canonicalizing as otherwise instantiating the canonical response may fail.
26f4ee0
to
c629527
Compare
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #140474) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
see perf run in #140480 (comment) |
comparing these two perf runs, tracking sub_relations in canonical inputs does slightly worsen performance: https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=e1841428183d264d2f48328b3de5c0f25654315a&end=9613271ee15ea18ed41f396fc7aaf4c1f760410a&stat=instructions%3Au |
[DO NOT MERGE] bootstrap with `-Znext-solver=globally` A revival of rust-lang#124812. Current status: ~~`./x.py b --stage 2` passes 🎉~~ `try` builds succeed 🎉 🎉 🎉 ~~[top 100 most downloaded crates on crates.io compile](rust-lang#133502 (comment) [top 1000 most downloaded crates on crates.io compile](rust-lang#133502 (comment)) [first perf run](rust-lang#133502 (comment)) 👻 ### in-flight changes - rust-lang#139587 - rust-lang#140497 - rust-lang#124852, unsure whether I actually want to land this PR for now - https://github.com/lcnr/rust/tree/opaque-type-method-call - rust-lang#140260 - rust-lang#140375 - rust-lang#140405 - rust-lang#140496 r? `@ghost`
[DO NOT MERGE] bootstrap with `-Znext-solver=globally` A revival of rust-lang#124812. Current status: ~~`./x.py b --stage 2` passes 🎉~~ `try` builds succeed 🎉 🎉 🎉 ~~[top 100 most downloaded crates on crates.io compile](rust-lang#133502 (comment) [top 1000 most downloaded crates on crates.io compile](rust-lang#133502 (comment)) [first perf run](rust-lang#133502 (comment)) 👻 ### in-flight changes - rust-lang#139587 - rust-lang#140497 - rust-lang#124852, unsure whether I actually want to land this PR for now - https://github.com/lcnr/rust/tree/opaque-type-method-call - rust-lang#140260 - rust-lang#140375 - rust-lang#140405 - rust-lang#140496 r? `@ghost`
[DO NOT MERGE] bootstrap with `-Znext-solver=globally` A revival of rust-lang#124812. Current status: ~~`./x.py b --stage 2` passes 🎉~~ `try` builds succeed 🎉 🎉 🎉 [first perf run](rust-lang#133502 (comment)) 👻 ### crater This does not detect hangs or memory issues. | date | #crates | #regressions | | ---- | ------- | ------------ | | 2025.04.11 | 100 | 2 | | 2025.04.11 | 1000 | 27 | | 2025.04.17 | 10000 | 456 | | 2025.04.18 | 10000 | 437 | | 2025.04.24 | 10000 | 164 | | 2025.04.26 | 10000 | 108 | | 2025.04.28 | 10000 | 91 | | 2025.05.01 | 10000 | 145 woops | ### in-flight changes - rust-lang#139587 - rust-lang#140497 - rust-lang#124852, unsure whether I actually want to land this PR for now - https://github.com/lcnr/rust/tree/opaque-type-method-call - rust-lang#140260 - rust-lang#140375 - rust-lang#140405 - rust-lang#140496 r? `@ghost`
We still only using them for diagnostics with the old solver.
We could use them for cycle detection in generalization and it seems desirable to do so in the future. However, this is unsound with the old trait solver as its cache does not track these
sub_relations
in any way. We would also need to consider them when canonicalizing as otherwise instantiating the canonical response may fail.Necessary for type inference guidance due to not-yet defined opaque types, cc rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#182.
r? @compiler-errors