Skip to content

Conversation

cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

@cjgillot cjgillot commented Sep 7, 2025

This resolves a FIXME in the code. I don't see a reason not to allow this.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 7, 2025

r? @BoxyUwU

rustbot has assigned @BoxyUwU.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@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. labels Sep 7, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 7, 2025

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

@dianqk
Copy link
Member

dianqk commented Sep 7, 2025

r? dianqk

@rustbot rustbot assigned dianqk and unassigned BoxyUwU Sep 7, 2025
Copy link
Member

@dianqk dianqk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dianqk
Copy link
Member

dianqk commented Sep 7, 2025

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 7, 2025

📌 Commit 52f74a5 has been approved by dianqk

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 Sep 7, 2025
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Sep 7, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Let's do a perf. run in the meantime.

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2025
GVN: Allow reusing aggregates if LHS is not a simple local.
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 7, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 7, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9126d99 (9126d99adec7358c2a341d0ae2de3004f95b5f6b, parent: f4b2f68e046a42309ca8faed411f7cd5b267cfb9)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (9126d99): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

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

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 1.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.4% [1.4%, 1.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary 2.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.9% [2.9%, 2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.4% [2.4%, 2.4%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.512s -> 466.311s (-1.73%)
Artifact size: 387.43 MiB -> 387.43 MiB (0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 7, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 7, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 52f74a5 with merge 55b9b4d...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 7, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: dianqk
Pushing 55b9b4d to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 7, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 55b9b4d into rust-lang:master Sep 7, 2025
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.91.0 milestone Sep 7, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 7, 2025

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing f13ef0d (parent) -> 55b9b4d (this PR)

Test differences

Show 3 test diffs

3 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 55b9b4d1e1bb5b46c04237a2fb2f8a85f39ef97d --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. x86_64-gnu-miri: 4405.3s -> 5702.3s (29.4%)
  2. aarch64-apple: 4653.7s -> 5377.9s (15.6%)
  3. dist-aarch64-apple: 6408.0s -> 5646.4s (-11.9%)
  4. dist-various-1: 3715.5s -> 4115.0s (10.8%)
  5. dist-apple-various: 4006.1s -> 3608.8s (-9.9%)
  6. x86_64-msvc-ext3: 6975.5s -> 6317.5s (-9.4%)
  7. aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 3543.3s -> 3240.1s (-8.6%)
  8. dist-x86_64-apple: 7559.1s -> 6915.3s (-8.5%)
  9. dist-x86_64-windows-gnullvm: 5044.6s -> 4676.1s (-7.3%)
  10. dist-powerpc-linux: 5174.4s -> 4880.1s (-5.7%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (55b9b4d): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.4%, secondary -1.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.4% [-3.5%, -1.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.4% [-1.4%, -1.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.4% [-3.5%, -1.3%] 2

Cycles

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary -2.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.6% [-1.6%, -1.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.2% [-2.2%, -2.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.6% [-1.6%, -1.6%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 467.986s -> 465.905s (-0.44%)
Artifact size: 387.44 MiB -> 387.45 MiB (0.00%)

@cjgillot cjgillot deleted the gvn-aggregate branch September 7, 2025 20:28
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. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants