-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Use get_many_mut to reduce the cost of setting up check cfg values #97657
Conversation
r? @oli-obk (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit e6acf5e2219c0e7991890c01244d868cca04b771 with merge 350ec00bebc560cbe87d5371aeccd39938af708b... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit 6a168e339e52c48615ab65416e12f74232ef2d68 with merge b3293a5514027cf3098be3a3662f26ea9d65d47c... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Queued b3293a5514027cf3098be3a3662f26ea9d65d47c with parent 20976ba, future comparison URL. |
Finished benchmarking commit (b3293a5514027cf3098be3a3662f26ea9d65d47c): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
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 @bors rollup=never Footnotes |
So this is perf neutral compare with the last perf run, Removing the |
I activated the well known values checking of rust/compiler/rustc_session/src/config.rs Line 978 in d40f24e
Ah, it's probably because of the new targets that have been added between the two runs or maybe unrelated changes in the compiler. The two perf runs are separated by ~2 months. I now realize that making the diff between those two perf run didn't show meaningful results because they were separated by a too long time. So my analysis was wrong, but I still think it's a improvement, eventhough I have no empirical data to prove it. Instead of doing 1760 ( |
Ah! thanks @bors r+ |
📌 Commit 5f04281 has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 5f04281 with merge bfe83cd71331443df35b72f74e885e9ff7a80526... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
@bors retry make[3]: *** No rule to make target |
⌛ Testing commit 5f04281 with merge 4d9510446ed98449413c6c9c22b693851477dedf... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
@bors retry timeout |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (abace0a): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression Footnotes |
This PR use the newly added
get_many_mut
function inHashMap
to reduce the cost of setting up the initial check cfg values.cc @petrochenkov