Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fix generator size regressions due to optimization - #63034
Merged
Conversation
tmandry
commented
Jul 27, 2019
MemberAuthor
This actually exposed a latent bug related to uninhabitedness (basically #59972). I'm working on a PR to fix this, which this PR is blocked on. |
rust-highfive
commented
Jul 27, 2019
Contributor
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
This prevents uninhabited fields from "infecting" the abi and largest_niche of the generator layout. This fixes a latent bug, where an uninhabited field could be promoted to the generator prefix and cause the entire generator to become uninhabited.
JohnCSimon
commented
Aug 3, 2019
@tmandry Howdy from Triage! Is this PR still blocked? |
tmandry
commented
Aug 3, 2019
via email
MemberAuthor
Yes, on #63035 (I’ll rebase once I get an r+) …On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:12 PM John Simon ***@***.***> wrote:
@tmandry <https://github.com/tmandry> Howdy from Triage! Is this PR still
blocked?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#63034?email_source=notifications&email_token=AARMYYA6XRZTXU4HFQGRM2TQCUHTBA5CNFSM4IHIKZH2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3PHIUQ#issuecomment-517895250>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARMYYBZDL3DBWF2F22XD7DQCUHTBANCNFSM4IHIKZHQ>
.
|
I tested the generator optimizations in rust-lang#60187 and rust-lang#61922 on the Fuchsia build, and noticed that some small generators (about 8% of the async fns in our build) increased in size slightly. This is because in rust-lang#60187 we split the fields into two groups, a "prefix" non-overlap region and an overlap region, and lay them out separately. This can introduce unnecessary padding bytes between the two groups. In every single case in the Fuchsia build, it was due to there being only a single variant being used in the overlap region. This means that we aren't doing any overlapping, period. So it's better to combine the two regions into one and lay out all the fields at once, which is what this change does.
tmandryforce-pushed
the
reduce-generator-size-regressions
branch
from
August 6, 2019 21:16
fd15837 to
b40788eComparecramertj
commented
Aug 6, 2019
Member
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Aug 6, 2019
Collaborator
📌 Commit b40788e has been approved by |
Centril added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 6, 2019
…ssions, r=cramertj Fix generator size regressions due to optimization I tested the generator optimizations in rust-lang#60187 and rust-lang#61922 on the Fuchsia build, and noticed that some small generators (about 8% of the async fns in our build) increased in size slightly. This is because in rust-lang#60187 we split the fields into two groups, a "prefix" non-overlap region and an overlap region, and lay them out separately. This can introduce unnecessary padding bytes between the two groups. In every single case in the Fuchsia build, it was due to there being only a single variant being used in the overlap region. This means that we aren't doing any overlapping, period. So it's better to combine the two regions into one and lay out all the fields at once, which is what this change does. r? @cramertj cc @eddyb@Zoxc
bors added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2019
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #63034 (Fix generator size regressions due to optimization) - #63035 (Use MaybeUninit to produce more correct layouts) - #63163 (add a pair of whitespace after remove parentheses) - #63294 (tests for async/await drop order) - #63307 (don't ignore mir_dump folder) - #63308 (PlaceRef's base is already a reference) - #63310 (Tests around moving parts of structs and tuples across await points) - #63314 (doc: the content has since been moved to the guide) - #63333 (Remove unnecessary features from compiler error code list) Failed merges: r? @ghost
bors
commented
Aug 7, 2019
Collaborator
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I tested the generator optimizations in #60187 and #61922 on the Fuchsia
build, and noticed that some small generators (about 8% of the async fns
in our build) increased in size slightly.
This is because in #60187 we split the fields into two groups, a
"prefix" non-overlap region and an overlap region, and lay them out
separately. This can introduce unnecessary padding bytes between the two
groups.
In every single case in the Fuchsia build, it was due to there being
only a single variant being used in the overlap region. This means that
we aren't doing any overlapping, period. So it's better to combine the
two regions into one and lay out all the fields at once, which is what
this change does.
r? @cramertj
cc @eddyb@Zoxc