Skip to content
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

Rollup of 5 pull requests #119069

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Dec 18, 2023
Merged

Rollup of 5 pull requests #119069

merged 14 commits into from
Dec 18, 2023

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

Kai Luo and others added 14 commits December 13, 2023 13:28
Coverage marker statements should have no effect on codegen, but in some cases
they could have the side-effect of creating a `func_coverage` entry for their
enclosing function. That can lead to an ICE for functions that don't actually
have any coverage spans.
coverage: Skip instrumenting a function if no spans were extracted from MIR

The immediate symptoms of rust-lang#118643 were fixed by rust-lang#118666, but some users reported that their builds now encounter another coverage-related ICE:

```
error: internal compiler error: compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/coverageinfo/mapgen.rs:98:17: A used function should have had coverage mapping data but did not: (...)
```

I was able to reproduce at least one cause of this error: if no relevant spans could be extracted from a function, but the function contains `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statements, then codegen still thinks the function is instrumented and complains about the fact that it has no coverage spans.

This PR prevents that from happening in two ways:
- If we didn't extract any relevant spans from MIR, skip instrumenting the entire function and don't create a `FunctionCoverateInfo` for it.
- If coverage codegen sees a `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statement, skip it early and avoid creating `func_coverage`.

---

Fixes rust-lang#118850.
…Lapkin

[AIX] Fix XCOFF metadata

rust-lang#118344  accidentally changed the way to get metadata from XCOFF file and broken our internal CI.

This PR reverts part of rust-lang#118344 .
Add better ICE messages for some undescriptive panics

Add some better messages at some panics

re: rust-lang#118955

I took a look at some others but either was not able to figure out what they did, or it was unclear what they should say instead. For example in the query system whether each time a poisoned value is matched upon if they should all just call `FatalError.raise()`
Replace `FileAllocationInfo` with `FileEndOfFileInfo`

This fixes WINE support
…headers, r=fee1-dead

Deny `~const` trait bounds in inherent impl headers

Follow-up to rust-lang#117817.
Implements rust-lang#117817 (comment).

Fixes rust-lang#117004.

r? fee1-dead or compiler
@rustbot rustbot added O-windows Operating system: Windows 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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Dec 18, 2023
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 18, 2023

📌 Commit c088f6a has been approved by matthiaskrgr

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 Dec 18, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 18, 2023

⌛ Testing commit c088f6a with merge e004adb...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 18, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing e004adb to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 18, 2023
@bors bors merged commit e004adb into rust-lang:master Dec 18, 2023
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.76.0 milestone Dec 18, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#118852 coverage: Skip instrumenting a function if no spans were ex… 470180f4ddaf4b24e398d23377e34784dea0f5fa (link)
#118905 [AIX] Fix XCOFF metadata a617504f4a3d6675184388516ef69c759d5b8931 (link)
#118967 Add better ICE messages for some undescriptive panics 6643cc108a722136cd9575111e4a630c458b2aa8 (link)
#119051 Replace FileAllocationInfo with FileEndOfFileInfo 2d8daf5f48408d18c935d8fa5517d41248b88195 (link)
#119059 Deny ~const trait bounds in inherent impl headers 26cc9a19cafbb85672d1fe6c0726b72075fcefd9 (link)

previous master: cda4736f1e

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e004adb): 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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.3%, -0.1%] 12
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.3% [-0.5%, -0.2%] 13
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.2% [-0.3%, -0.1%] 12

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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.8% [-1.3%, -0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.4% [-4.3%, -1.7%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.8% [-1.3%, -0.5%] 3

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)
3.6% [3.6%, 3.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.7% [-0.7%, -0.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.7%, 0.8%] 2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 673.091s -> 672.726s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 312.52 MiB -> 312.44 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Dec 18, 2023
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

  • The two minor regressions to secondary benchmarks do not warrant spending time trying to tease apart this rollup, IMO.
  • marked as triaged

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Dec 19, 2023
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-xxk4m30 branch March 16, 2024 18:20
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. O-windows Operating system: Windows perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. rollup A PR which is a rollup 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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants