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

Remove BadImplStripper code #96337

Closed

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Following this comment suggestion. I gave a try at removing BadImplStripper.

I ran rustdoc tests and all passed so apparently it's now possible to not rely on BadImplStripper anymore. Is there maybe a case that isn't covered by the tests though?

r? @camelid

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Some changes occurred in clean/types.rs.

cc @camelid

@rustbot rustbot added the T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Apr 23, 2022
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Apr 23, 2022
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Let's check if there is an impact on perf:

@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 Apr 23, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 23, 2022

⌛ Trying commit b178b09 with merge 2ab0cef387112435a80c2aa6f3fad22792145372...

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-12 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
failures:

---- [rustdoc-json] src/test/rustdoc-json/primitive.rs stdout ----

error: jsondocck failed!
status: exit status: 1
command: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0-tools-bin/jsondocck" "--doc-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/rustdoc-json/primitive" "--template" "/checkout/src/test/rustdoc-json/primitive.rs"
stdout: none
--- stderr -------------------------------
Failed check: `@!has - $.index[*][?(@.name=='is_ascii_uppercase')]` matched when it shouldn't on line 14
Error: "Jsondocck failed for /checkout/src/test/rustdoc-json/primitive.rs"

Rustdoc Output:
status: exit status: 0
status: exit status: 0
command: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustdoc" "-L" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/lib/rustlib/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib" "-L" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/rustdoc-json/primitive/auxiliary" "-o" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/rustdoc-json/primitive" "--deny" "warnings" "/checkout/src/test/rustdoc-json/primitive.rs" "--edition=2018" "--output-format" "json" "-Zunstable-options"
stdout: none
stderr: none


failures:
    [rustdoc-json] src/test/rustdoc-json/primitive.rs

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Seems like rustdoc-json has one failing test in the end. :)

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 23, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2ab0cef387112435a80c2aa6f3fad22792145372 (2ab0cef387112435a80c2aa6f3fad22792145372)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued 2ab0cef387112435a80c2aa6f3fad22792145372 with parent 09064a2, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (2ab0cef387112435a80c2aa6f3fad22792145372): comparison url.

Summary:

  • Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
Regressions 😿
(primary)
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
All 😿 🎉
(primary)
count1 17 23 1 0 18
mean2 13.7% 29.6% -0.3% N/A 12.9%
max 43.3% 44.2% -0.3% N/A 43.3%

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

Footnotes

  1. number of relevant changes

  2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Apr 23, 2022
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

That's quite the disaster. 😆

Oh well, now we know. :)

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the bad-impl-stripper branch April 23, 2022 15:33
@camelid
Copy link
Member

camelid commented Apr 23, 2022

@GuillaumeGomez obviously, we can't land this as-is, but I think it might still be worth investigating a modification of this PR. My recollection is that BadImplStripper actually strips some impls that shouldn't be stripped. I'm pretty sure the regression is because more impls are being kept, so we should figure out what impls were being stripped before.

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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc 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