[JonathanBrouwer]

View all comments

This PR implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#1044.
It is split up into commits, each commit passes tests, and reviewing commit by commit is therefore heavily recommended. Each commit contains a description. The first commit makes the big change, and the other commits are cleanup.

This PR causes a minor performance regression, specifically on the libc and externs benchmark:
#163758 (comment)
This is caused by that parameters on foreign functions are now assigned HIR IDs, so slightly more work is needed.
Both of these crates are basically only foreign functions, so not very representative of an average rust program.

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for be17f02 failed: CI. Failed jobs:

• try - dist-aarch64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)
• try - dist-x86_64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b0e36da (b0e36dabc37e5dc5550a520d05ab86f3c07ef73a)
Base parent: f48b3e6 (f48b3e61eeece268609bd920fcca1ded047db7ca)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b0e36da): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.3%, 3.2%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	52
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.0%]	56
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, 0.1%]	55

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.8%)

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)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.6%	[-6.6%, -6.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.7%)

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)	4.3%	[2.2%, 6.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 490.122s -> 491.234s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 408.65 MiB -> 409.03 MiB (0.09%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b5548fd (b5548fde66176d767c76d89629c4271fe93c45dc)
Base parent: a7c37f9 (a7c37f9f0ee5e93396106e9de20f4a86b4154e63)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b5548fd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	23
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.0%, 2.1%]	19
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.1%, 0.4%]	25

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.8%, secondary 1.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.4%, 4.6%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-2.3%, 0.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 2.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[0.8%, 8.4%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-6.7%, -2.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-2.3%, 3.0%]	2

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 491.717s -> 489.858s (-0.38%)
Artifact size: 408.99 MiB -> 409.39 MiB (0.10%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: cc2d478 (cc2d478edcbf7393a6d9b2fb9f03e2464735a6f1)
Base parent: 2d20b42 (2d20b42b883dcfc014f3c2c56081eeb6091c2179)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cc2d478): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=iffy rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.2%, 2.0%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 1.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[0.8%, 3.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[1.6%, 4.8%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-5.1%, -1.9%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[0.8%, 3.2%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary 3.7%)

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)	3.7%	[2.4%, 4.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 480.462s -> 482.396s (0.40%)
Artifact size: 406.22 MiB -> 406.66 MiB (0.11%)