perf: delay checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` in autoref lint by Urgau · Pull Request #140406 · rust-lang/rust

Urgau · 2025-04-28T18:42:31Z

Try to address the regression seen in #123239 (comment) by delaying the checking of #[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs] on method call.

rustbot · 2025-04-28T18:42:36Z

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Urgau · 2025-04-28T18:43:24Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-04-28T18:44:34Z

⌛ Trying commit 3664fd9 with merge c219daa...

perf: delay checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` in autoref lint Try to address the regression seen in rust-lang#123239 (comment) by delaying the checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` on method call.

bors · 2025-04-28T20:50:04Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c219daa (c219daa25e45c540fa286e1635485c7da0b41401)

nnethercote · 2025-04-28T20:53:23Z

Code changes look fine. r=me with the nits fixed, if it helps perf.

rust-timer · 2025-04-28T23:29:16Z

Finished benchmarking commit (c219daa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-3.4%, -0.2%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, 3.0%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary 1.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.8%, 1.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-2.1%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-2.1%, 1.7%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary 2.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.4%, 2.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-2.8%, -0.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-2.8%, 2.8%]	13

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 765.314s -> 765.615s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 365.17 MiB -> 365.20 MiB (0.01%)

nnethercote · 2025-04-29T00:07:30Z

Looks like the perf regression has been reversed! :)

@bors delegate=Urgau

bors · 2025-04-29T00:07:32Z

✌️ @Urgau, you can now approve this pull request!

If @nnethercote told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@nnethercote

Urgau · 2025-04-29T06:20:47Z

@bors r=@nnethercote

bors · 2025-04-29T06:20:50Z

📌 Commit c519510 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

perf: delay checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` in autoref lint Try to address the regression seen in rust-lang#123239 (comment) by delaying the checking of `#[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs]` on method call.

bors · 2025-05-02T17:35:53Z

⌛ Testing commit c519510 with merge 4824c2b...

bors · 2025-05-02T20:58:16Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing 4824c2b to master...

github-actions · 2025-05-02T21:00:00Z

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 7c96085 (parent) -> 4824c2b (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 4824c2bb7445cb2478aab0190c268c939d77a0f6 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

dist-x86_64-apple: 12396.4s -> 8006.7s (-35.4%)
x86_64-apple-1: 7451.5s -> 9777.2s (31.2%)
x86_64-apple-2: 5171.2s -> 4363.8s (-15.6%)
dist-armv7-linux: 5312.2s -> 6110.5s (15.0%)
dist-aarch64-linux: 6175.5s -> 5528.4s (-10.5%)
dist-arm-linux: 4593.3s -> 5060.2s (10.2%)
x86_64-gnu: 7095.0s -> 6462.2s (-8.9%)
dist-riscv64-linux: 5208.8s -> 5553.7s (6.6%)
dist-i686-msvc: 7382.3s -> 6923.1s (-6.2%)
dist-x86_64-msvc: 6497.9s -> 6107.0s (-6.0%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

rust-timer · 2025-05-02T22:49:44Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4824c2b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, -0.2%]	13
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, -0.2%]	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.7%, secondary -0.2%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[0.5%, 4.2%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-8.4%, -0.4%]	49
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-8.4%, 4.2%]	54

Cycles

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary 3.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-3.1%, -0.4%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-3.1%, 0.7%]	15

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 769.081s -> 767.886s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 365.55 MiB -> 365.54 MiB (-0.00%)

rustbot assigned nnethercote Apr 28, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Apr 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 28, 2025

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

nnethercote reviewed Apr 28, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadcompiler/rustc_lint/src/autorefs.rs Outdated

nnethercote reviewed Apr 28, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadcompiler/rustc_lint/src/autorefs.rs Outdated

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Apr 28, 2025

Delay checking of #[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs] for reason
c519510

Urgau force-pushed the autorefs-perf branch from 3664fd9 to c519510Compare April 29, 2025 05:29

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 29, 2025

rylev mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2025
Implement a lint for implicit autoref of raw pointer dereference - take 2 #123239
Merged

VlaDexa mentioned this pull request May 2, 2025
Rollup of 40 pull requests #140573
Closed

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 2, 2025

bors merged commit 4824c2b into rust-lang:masterMay 2, 2025

rustbot added this to the 1.88.0 milestone May 2, 2025

rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label May 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

Urgau commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Urgau commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Apr 28, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Urgau commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented May 2, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented May 2, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actionsBot commented May 2, 2025

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented May 2, 2025

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants