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

[BENCH] Revert "Fix non-capturing closure return type coercion" #88926

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@workingjubilee workingjubilee commented Sep 14, 2021

Using to attempt to answer profiling questions raised in discussion in #88857

r? @ghost

@workingjubilee workingjubilee self-assigned this Sep 14, 2021
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 14, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 14, 2021

⌛ Trying commit 0414894 with merge cc08b15420582202a8bffdb12043459d014ffb75...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 14, 2021

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cc08b15420582202a8bffdb12043459d014ffb75 (cc08b15420582202a8bffdb12043459d014ffb75)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued cc08b15420582202a8bffdb12043459d014ffb75 with parent 9f85cd6, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (cc08b15420582202a8bffdb12043459d014ffb75): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant regressions 😿 in compiler performance.

  • Very large regression in instruction counts (up to 81.7% on full builds of coercions)

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

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 led 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Sep 14, 2021
@jackh726
Copy link
Member

Closing since we don't want to land; was just for perf.

Thanks @workingjubilee

@jackh726 jackh726 closed this Sep 17, 2021
@jackh726 jackh726 deleted the revert-88147-issue-88097 branch September 17, 2021 00:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants