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

Make DefiningAnchor::Bind only store the opaque types that may be constrained, instead of the current infcx root item. #121796

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 11, 2024

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented Feb 29, 2024

This makes Bind almost always be empty, so we can start forwarding it to queries, allowing us to remove Bubble entirely (not done in this PR)

The only behaviour change is in diagnostics.

r? @lcnr @compiler-errors

@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. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) labels Feb 29, 2024
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Feb 29, 2024

Note that the item constrains opaque type that is not in its signature error can still occur after this change. For example in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/type-alias-impl-trait/hidden_behind_struct_field2.rs#L18 . I have not yet debugged what is going on here, but it's an inconsistency in the bind-set calculation

@aliemjay aliemjay self-assigned this Feb 29, 2024
@oli-obk

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rustbot rustbot added S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 1, 2024
@oli-obk

This comment was marked as resolved.

@oli-obk oli-obk added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Mar 1, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 1, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #121462) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@oli-obk oli-obk force-pushed the eager_opaque_checks3 branch 2 times, most recently from fbcfe97 to 04461ee Compare March 5, 2024 17:11
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 5, 2024

@rustbot ready for review

the first commit is from #121991 which is already approved and part of a rollup

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@bors try @rust-timer queue

(would be fine with landing this even if it's perf negative, i'm just curious)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Mar 5, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 04461ee with merge ee25694...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2024
Make `DefiningAnchor::Bind` only store the opaque types that may be constrained, instead of the current infcx root item.

This makes `Bind` almost always be empty, so we can start forwarding it to queries, allowing us to remove `Bubble` entirely (not done in this PR)

The only behaviour change is in diagnostics.

r? `@lcnr` `@compiler-errors`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ee25694 (ee25694924ae739071a8cbd23ab1252b5eb7994a)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (ee25694): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)
0.6% [0.2%, 1.8%] 123
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.6% [0.2%, 1.2%] 19
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.2%, 1.8%] 123

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)
3.8% [0.6%, 8.5%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.0% [-1.1%, 8.5%] 6

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)
1.2% [1.1%, 1.3%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.4% [2.3%, 2.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.2% [1.1%, 1.3%] 2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 644.654s -> 647.067s (0.37%)
Artifact size: 175.03 MiB -> 175.07 MiB (0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Mar 5, 2024
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 5, 2024

The regression in full builds is entirely due to all the invocations of opaque_types_defined_by

Incremental builds regress due to depgraph encoding.

I have ideas for the incremental cases, not sure what to do about the extra work in full builds

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Mar 11, 2024
oli-obk and others added 3 commits March 11, 2024 17:19
…onstrained, instead of the current infcx root item.

This makes `Bind` almost always be empty, so we can start forwarding it to queries, allowing us to remove `Bubble` entirely
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Mar 11, 2024

@bors r=lcnr

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

📌 Commit b0328c2 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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Mar 11, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2024
Pass list of defineable opaque types into canonical queries

based on rust-lang#121796

This eliminates `DefiningAnchor::Bubble` for good and brings the old solver closer to the new one wrt cycles and nested obligations. At that point the difference between `DefiningAnchor::Bind([])` and `DefiningAnchor::Error` was academic. We only used the difference for some sanity checks, which actually had to be worked around in places, so I just removed `DefiningAnchor` entirely and just stored the list of opaques that may be defined.

fixes rust-lang#108498

* [ ] run crater
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

⌛ Testing commit b0328c2 with merge 4ccbb7d...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 4ccbb7d to master...

1 similar comment
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 4ccbb7d to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 11, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 4ccbb7d into rust-lang:master Mar 11, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 11, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (4ccbb7d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)
0.6% [0.2%, 1.8%] 112
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.2%, 1.8%] 27
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.2%, 1.8%] 112

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)
2.1% [0.7%, 3.2%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.7% [2.0%, 13.2%] 10
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.6% [-2.2%, -1.1%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-2.2%, 3.2%] 7

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)
0.9% [0.5%, 1.3%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.9% [0.5%, 1.3%] 2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 669.92s -> 671.027s (0.17%)
Artifact size: 309.97 MiB -> 310.05 MiB (0.03%)

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2024
@oli-obk oli-obk deleted the eager_opaque_checks3 branch March 12, 2024 05:45
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
Strip placeholders from hidden types before remapping generic parameter

When remapping generic parameters in the hidden type to the generic parameters of the definition of the opaque, we assume that placeholders cannot exist. Instead of just patching that site, I decided to handle it earlier, directly in `infer_opaque_types`, where we are already doing all the careful lifetime handling.

fixes rust-lang#122694

the reason that ICE now occurred was that we stopped treating `operation` as being in the defining scope, so the TAIT became part of the hidden type of the `async fn`'s opaque type instead of just bailing out as ambiguos

I think

```rust
use std::future::Future;

mod foo {
    type FutNothing<'a> = impl 'a + Future<Output = ()>;
    //~^ ERROR: unconstrained opaque type
}

async fn operation(_: &mut ()) -> () {
    //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
    call(operation).await
    //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
}

async fn call<F>(_f: F)
where
    for<'any> F: FnMut(&'any mut ()) -> foo::FutNothing<'any>,
{
    //~^ ERROR: expected generic lifetime parameter, found `'any`
}
```

would have already had the same ICE before rust-lang#121796
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
Strip placeholders from hidden types before remapping generic parameter

When remapping generic parameters in the hidden type to the generic parameters of the definition of the opaque, we assume that placeholders cannot exist. Instead of just patching that site, I decided to handle it earlier, directly in `infer_opaque_types`, where we are already doing all the careful lifetime handling.

fixes rust-lang#122694

the reason that ICE now occurred was that we stopped treating `operation` as being in the defining scope, so the TAIT became part of the hidden type of the `async fn`'s opaque type instead of just bailing out as ambiguos

I think

```rust
use std::future::Future;

mod foo {
    type FutNothing<'a> = impl 'a + Future<Output = ()>;
    //~^ ERROR: unconstrained opaque type
}

async fn operation(_: &mut ()) -> () {
    //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
    call(operation).await
    //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
}

async fn call<F>(_f: F)
where
    for<'any> F: FnMut(&'any mut ()) -> foo::FutNothing<'any>,
{
    //~^ ERROR: expected generic lifetime parameter, found `'any`
}
```

would have already had the same ICE before rust-lang#121796
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#122733 - oli-obk:error_prop, r=compiler-errors

Strip placeholders from hidden types before remapping generic parameter

When remapping generic parameters in the hidden type to the generic parameters of the definition of the opaque, we assume that placeholders cannot exist. Instead of just patching that site, I decided to handle it earlier, directly in `infer_opaque_types`, where we are already doing all the careful lifetime handling.

fixes rust-lang#122694

the reason that ICE now occurred was that we stopped treating `operation` as being in the defining scope, so the TAIT became part of the hidden type of the `async fn`'s opaque type instead of just bailing out as ambiguos

I think

```rust
use std::future::Future;

mod foo {
    type FutNothing<'a> = impl 'a + Future<Output = ()>;
    //~^ ERROR: unconstrained opaque type
}

async fn operation(_: &mut ()) -> () {
    //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
    call(operation).await
    //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous
}

async fn call<F>(_f: F)
where
    for<'any> F: FnMut(&'any mut ()) -> foo::FutNothing<'any>,
{
    //~^ ERROR: expected generic lifetime parameter, found `'any`
}
```

would have already had the same ICE before rust-lang#121796
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. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. 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. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants