Panic directly in Arguments::new* instead of recursing by saethlin · Pull Request #117804 · rust-lang/rust

saethlin · 2023-11-11T03:52:47Z

This has been bothering me because it looks very silly in MIR.

saethlin · 2023-11-11T03:55:39Z

bors · 2023-11-11T03:56:49Z

⌛ Trying commit ca211ea with merge 3f1c95e...

Panic directly in Arguments::new* instead of recursing This has been bothering me because it looks very silly in MIR. Maybe the simpler form is faster? It surely inlines more... but is that good? r? `@ghost`

bors · 2023-11-11T05:22:58Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3f1c95e (3f1c95e7f80cf85417b044bf9e22fccc8e8da9fa)

rust-timer · 2023-11-11T11:54:39Z

Finished benchmarking commit (3f1c95e): 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)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.7%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.7%]	5

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)	1.0%	[0.5%, 3.3%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[0.8%, 3.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-8.0%, -0.0%]	16
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-8.0%, 3.3%]	24

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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.0%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, 0.4%]	5

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 1.6%]	30
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	18
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.3%, 1.6%]	48

Bootstrap: 674.031s -> 673.733s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 311.12 MiB -> 311.18 MiB (0.02%)

saethlin · 2024-02-14T20:51:10Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Panic directly in Arguments::new* instead of recursing This has been bothering me because it looks very silly in MIR. Maybe the simpler form is faster? It surely inlines more... but is that good? r? `@ghost`

bors · 2024-02-14T20:52:21Z

⌛ Trying commit 28561aa with merge 2d12f93...

bors · 2024-02-14T22:20:03Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2d12f93 (2d12f936c6b3cc86f816bc3447e7a5a79bbbcff3)

saethlin · 2024-04-05T16:27:58Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2024-04-05T16:29:09Z

⌛ Trying commit 84a3671 with merge 7121f46...

Panic directly in Arguments::new* instead of recursing This has been bothering me because it looks very silly in MIR.

bors · 2024-04-05T18:03:17Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7121f46 (7121f46349015d3a65d1186e0977f1b80253343f)

rust-timer · 2024-04-05T19:33:17Z

Finished benchmarking commit (7121f46): 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)	0.7%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.0%, -0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-1.0%, 0.9%]	5

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)	7.4%	[3.2%, 11.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.7%	[-7.4%, -3.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.6%, -1.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-7.4%, 11.6%]	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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.0%, 0.8%]	2

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, -0.0%]	26
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, -0.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, 0.6%]	35

Bootstrap: 668.884s -> 667.893s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 318.05 MiB -> 318.07 MiB (0.01%)

saethlin · 2024-05-22T00:40:42Z

r-l-a reported the wrong chunk:

  error[E0015]: cannot call non-const fn `intrinsics::abort` in constant functions
     --> library/core/src/fmt/mod.rs:345:13
      |
  345 |             crate::intrinsics::abort();
      |             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      |
      = note: calls in constant functions are limited to constant functions, tuple structs and tuple variants

@joboet how should I abort in a const fn?

joboet · 2024-05-23T11:50:20Z

Ah, I see... then how about panicking::panic_nounwind?

rustbot · 2024-05-23T13:20:19Z

Some changes occurred in src/tools/cargo

cc @ehuss

saethlin · 2024-05-23T13:21:59Z

Accidentally snagged a submodule change in my haste.

joboet · 2024-05-23T14:23:52Z

Thank you!
@bors r+
r? joboet

bors · 2024-05-23T14:23:55Z

📌 Commit 75f3cef has been approved by joboet

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-05-23T17:11:14Z

⌛ Testing commit 75f3cef with merge 606afbb...

Skgland · 2024-05-23T17:38:14Z

@@ -340,7 +340,9 @@ impl<'a> Arguments<'a> {
    #[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "const_fmt_arguments_new", issue = "none")]
    pub const fn new_const(pieces: &'a [&'static str]) -> Self {


Is there a reason it can't be

Suggested change

pub const fn new_const(pieces: &'a [&'static str]) -> Self {

pub const fn new_const(pieces: &'a [&'static str; 1]) -> Self {

eliminating the "runtime" check?

This function currently is called with references to arrays of length 1 and 0. This is a decent idea, but at least it would require some amount of surgery on the format_args! expansion code.

Ah, right, I overlooked 0 being valid as well.

What about then?

Suggested change

pub const fn new_const(pieces: &'a [&'static str]) -> Self {

pub const fn new_const<const N: usize>(pieces: &'a [&'static str; N]) -> Self {

After monomorphization the check should be eliminat-able this way, though I suspect this function is probably small enough to be probably always inlined anyways, making this point moot.

Hunh. That's a really good idea.

bors · 2024-05-23T19:26:13Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: joboet
Pushing 606afbb to master...

rust-timer · 2024-05-23T21:49:53Z

Finished benchmarking commit (606afbb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.9%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.5%, 0.3%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.7%, secondary -5.6%)

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.6%	[1.0%, 7.0%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-7.7%	[-10.7%, -3.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.6%	[-5.6%, -5.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-10.7%, 7.0%]	8

Cycles

Results (primary -3.3%, secondary -2.5%)

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.1%)

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%, 0.5%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	46
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, -0.0%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.0%, 0.5%]	49

Bootstrap: 673.733s -> 672.526s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 315.79 MiB -> 315.69 MiB (-0.03%)

saethlin · 2024-05-23T22:52:14Z

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

No cycles regressions. The small bit of jitter was expected based on poking the size of a common function's MIR. The 7 match-stress secondary regressions are unexpected, but the cachegrind diff attributes all changes in those to rustc_hir_analysis::check::check::check_item_type which makes this seem like inliner noise. Unclear how to investigate further. The check regression in tt-muncher produces a cachegrind diff that reports a decrease in instructions, and the the debug regression in tt-muncher reports the entire regression is in memmove. Unclear what to make of that.

…t, r=<try> Move the checks for Arguments constructors to inline const Thanks `@Skgland` for pointing out this opportunity: rust-lang#117804 (comment)

…t, r=joboet Move the checks for Arguments constructors to inline const Thanks `@Skgland` for pointing out this opportunity: rust-lang#117804 (comment)

Move the checks for Arguments constructors to inline const Thanks `@Skgland` for pointing out this opportunity: rust-lang/rust#117804 (comment)

saethlin added the S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. label Nov 11, 2023

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 11, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 11, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Nov 11, 2023

Noratrieb removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jan 8, 2024

saethlin force-pushed the no-recursive-panics branch from ca211ea to 28561aa Compare February 14, 2024 05:14

saethlin force-pushed the no-recursive-panics branch from 28561aa to 84a3671 Compare April 5, 2024 16:27

saethlin added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. labels Apr 5, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 5, 2024

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 5, 2024

Auto merge of rust-lang#117804 - saethlin:no-recursive-panics, r=<try>

7121f46

Panic directly in Arguments::new* instead of recursing This has been bothering me because it looks very silly in MIR.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

saethlin force-pushed the no-recursive-panics branch from e2c1008 to bff3625 Compare May 23, 2024 13:20

panic_nounwind in Arguments::new* instead of recursing

75f3cef

saethlin force-pushed the no-recursive-panics branch from bff3625 to 75f3cef Compare May 23, 2024 13:21

rustbot assigned joboet May 23, 2024

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 May 23, 2024

rustbot unassigned m-ou-se May 23, 2024

Skgland reviewed May 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 23, 2024

bors merged commit 606afbb into rust-lang:master May 23, 2024

rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 23, 2024

saethlin deleted the no-recursive-panics branch May 23, 2024 19:28

rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label May 23, 2024

saethlin mentioned this pull request May 24, 2024

Move the checks for Arguments constructors to inline const #125518

Merged

		@@ -340,7 +340,9 @@ impl<'a> Arguments<'a> {
		#[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "const_fmt_arguments_new", issue = "none")]
		pub const fn new_const(pieces: &'a [&'static str]) -> Self {

	pub const fn new_const(pieces: &'a [&'static str]) -> Self {
	pub const fn new_const<const N: usize>(pieces: &'a [&'static str; N]) -> Self {

Uh oh!

Conversation

saethlin commented Nov 11, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

saethlin commented Nov 11, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Nov 11, 2023

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 11, 2023

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Nov 11, 2023

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

saethlin commented Feb 14, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Feb 14, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Feb 14, 2024

Uh oh!

saethlin commented Apr 5, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Apr 5, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 5, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Apr 5, 2024

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

saethlin commented May 22, 2024

Uh oh!

joboet commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

rustbot commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

saethlin commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

joboet commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bors commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented May 23, 2024

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Uh oh!

saethlin commented May 23, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

saethlin commented Nov 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

saethlin commented May 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading