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 7 pull requests #98656

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Jun 29, 2022
Merged

Rollup of 7 pull requests #98656

merged 16 commits into from
Jun 29, 2022

Conversation

Dylan-DPC
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

pietroalbini and others added 16 commits June 13, 2022 14:38
Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
… r=tmiasko

Simplify memory ordering intrinsics

This changes the names of the atomic intrinsics to always fully include their memory ordering arguments.

```diff
- atomic_cxchg
+ atomic_cxchg_seqcst_seqcst

- atomic_cxchg_acqrel
+ atomic_cxchg_acqrel_release

- atomic_cxchg_acqrel_failrelaxed
+ atomic_cxchg_acqrel_relaxed

// And so on.
```

- `seqcst` is no longer implied
- The failure ordering on chxchg is no longer implied in some cases, but now always explicitly part of the name.
- `release` is no longer shortened to just `rel`. That was especially confusing, since `relaxed` also starts with `rel`.
- `acquire` is no longer shortened to just `acq`, such that the names now all match the `std::sync::atomic::Ordering` variants exactly.
- This now allows for more combinations on the compare exchange operations, such as `atomic_cxchg_acquire_release`, which is necessary for rust-lang#68464.
- This PR only exposes the new possibilities through unstable intrinsics, but not yet through the stable API. That's for [a separate PR](rust-lang#98383) that requires an FCP.

Suffixes for operations with a single memory order:

| Order   | Before       | After      |
|---------|--------------|------------|
| Relaxed | `_relaxed`   | `_relaxed` |
| Acquire | `_acq`       | `_acquire` |
| Release | `_rel`       | `_release` |
| AcqRel  | `_acqrel`    | `_acqrel`  |
| SeqCst  | (none)       | `_seqcst`  |

Suffixes for compare-and-exchange operations with two memory orderings:

| Success | Failure | Before                   | After              |
|---------|---------|--------------------------|--------------------|
| Relaxed | Relaxed | `_relaxed`               | `_relaxed_relaxed` |
| Relaxed | Acquire | ❌                      | `_relaxed_acquire` |
| Relaxed | SeqCst  | ❌                      | `_relaxed_seqcst`  |
| Acquire | Relaxed | `_acq_failrelaxed`       | `_acquire_relaxed` |
| Acquire | Acquire | `_acq`                   | `_acquire_acquire` |
| Acquire | SeqCst  | ❌                      | `_acquire_seqcst`  |
| Release | Relaxed | `_rel`                   | `_release_relaxed` |
| Release | Acquire | ❌                      | `_release_acquire` |
| Release | SeqCst  | ❌                      | `_release_seqcst`  |
| AcqRel  | Relaxed | `_acqrel_failrelaxed`    | `_acqrel_relaxed`  |
| AcqRel  | Acquire | `_acqrel`                | `_acqrel_acquire`  |
| AcqRel  | SeqCst  | ❌                      | `_acqrel_seqcst`   |
| SeqCst  | Relaxed | `_failrelaxed`           | `_seqcst_relaxed`  |
| SeqCst  | Acquire | `_failacq`               | `_seqcst_acquire`  |
| SeqCst  | SeqCst  | (none)                   | `_seqcst_seqcst`   |
…kh726

Use typed indices in argument mismatch algorithm

I kinda went overboard with the renames, but in general, "arg" is renamed to "expected", and "input" is renamed to "provided", and we use new typed indices to make sure we're indexing into the right sized array.

Other drive-by changes:
1. Factor this logic into a new function, so we don't need to `break 'label` to escape it.
1. Factored out dependence on `final_arg_types`, which is never populated for arguments greater than the number of expected args. Instead, we just grab the final coerced expression type from `in_progress_typeck_results`.
1. Adjust the criteria we use to print (provided) type names, before we didn't suggest anything that had infer vars, but now we suggest thing that have infer vars but aren't `_`.

~Also, sorry in advance, I kinda want to backport this but I know I have folded in a lot of unnecessary drive-by changes that might discourage that. I would be open to brainstorming how to get some of these changes on beta at least.~ edit: Minimized the ICE-fixing changes to rust-lang#97557

cc `@jackh726` as author of rust-lang#92364, and `@estebank` as reviewer of the PR.
fixes rust-lang#97484
…fix, r=Mark-Simulacrum

Account for `-Z simulate-remapped-rust-src-base` when resolving remapped paths

Discovered in rust-lang#97682, `-Z simulate-remapped-rust-src-base` only partially simulated the behavior of `remap-debuginfo = true`. While the flag successfully simulates the remapping when stdlib's `rmeta` file is loaded, the simulated prefix was not accounted for when the remapped path's local path was being discovered. This caused the flag to not fully simulate the behavior of `remap-debuginfo = true`, leading to inconsistent behaviors.

This PR fixes rust-lang#97682 by also accounting for the simulated path.
…bank

Fix trait object reborrow suggestion

Fixes rust-lang#93596

Slightly generalizes the logic we use to suggest fix first implemented in rust-lang#95609, specifically when we have a `Sized` obligation that comes from a struct's unsized tail.
…rrors

Add regression test for rust-lang#79224

Closes rust-lang#79224
r? `@compiler-errors`

Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
…li-obk

interpret: do not prune requires_caller_location stack frames quite so early

rust-lang#87000 made the interpreter skip `caller_location` frames for its stacktraces and `cur_span`. However, those functions are used for much more than just panic reporting, and e.g. when Miri reports UB somewhere, it probably wants to point inside `caller_location` frames. (And if it did not, it would want to have its own logic to decide that, not be forced into it by the core interpreter engine.) This fixes some rare ICEs in Miri that say "we should never pop more than one frame at once".

So let's remove all `caller_location` logic from the core interpreter, and instead move it to CTFE error reporting. This does not change user-visible behavior. That's the first commit.

We might additionally want to change CTFE error reporting to treat panics differently from other errors: only prune `caller_location` frames for panics. The second commit does that. But honestly I am not sure if this is an improvement.

r? ``@oli-obk``
…nostic-fixes, r=davidtwco

Some borrowck diagnostic fixes

1. Remove some redundant `.as_ref` suggestion logic from borrowck, this has the consequence of also not suggesting `.as_ref` after `Option` methods, but (correctly) before.
2. Fix a bug where we were replacing a binding's name with a type. Instead, make it a note.

This is somewhat incomplete. See `src/test/ui/borrowck/suggest-as-ref-on-mut-closure.rs` for more improvements.
@rustbot rustbot added 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 Jun 29, 2022
@Dylan-DPC
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

📌 Commit 25fb2b4 has been approved by Dylan-DPC

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jun 29, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 25fb2b4 with merge 493c960...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Dylan-DPC
Pushing 493c960 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jun 29, 2022
@bors bors merged commit 493c960 into rust-lang:master Jun 29, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.64.0 milestone Jun 29, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (493c960): comparison url.

Instruction count

  • Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
1.4% 11.3% 131
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
3.5% 11.2% 73
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-2.2% -3.1% 8
All 😿🎉 (primary) 1.4% 11.3% 131

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
3.1% 4.6% 5
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-2.1% -2.1% 1
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-3.0% -3.4% 2
All 😿🎉 (primary) -2.1% -2.1% 1

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
3.9% 7.5% 11
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
4.9% 7.8% 33
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-5.2% -5.3% 2
All 😿🎉 (primary) 3.9% 7.5% 11

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jun 29, 2022
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

Would be good to investigate this regression -- I'm suspecting #98277 myself as doc regressions typically point to trait solving and that seems like it could add a slight regression there, cc @compiler-errors

May not be worth doing anything more that confirming that assumption, though on smaller benchmarks the regression is pretty large.

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

i can put up a revert pr to check perf

@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jul 6, 2022

Some of the doc/check regressions look to be in metadata decoding, so I suspect it's more likely to be #97786. I'll put up a revert soon to check.

@lqd lqd mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2022
@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jul 6, 2022

Looks like #97786 was a major part of this rollup's regression indeed.

What's the procedure to follow ? Leave a message on the PR (done), requesting improvements, or a revert, etc ?

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. 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.