Don't treat asserts as a call in cross-crate inlining #117192

saethlin · 2023-10-25T21:34:21Z

Making functions with calls in their bodies automatically cross-crate-inlinable tends to tank incremental build times. Though assert terminators are like calls, they don't exhibit the same behavior.

rustbot · 2023-10-25T21:34:25Z

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

saethlin · 2023-10-25T21:34:44Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-10-25T21:35:54Z

⌛ Trying commit 242d47d with merge 4729728...

Don't treat asserts as a call in cross-crate inlining r? `@ghost`

bors · 2023-10-25T22:57:01Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4729728 (47297289968ed393160d52bfca90a8d1c2e4c3c3)

rust-timer · 2023-10-26T01:11:29Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4729728): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.5%	[0.9%, 5.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-5.0%, -1.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	4

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 304.44 MiB -> 304.44 MiB (-0.00%)

saethlin · 2023-10-26T01:14:28Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-10-26T01:15:37Z

⌛ Trying commit ffa51c9 with merge 4ddfadb...

Don't treat asserts as a call in cross-crate inlining r? `@ghost`

bors · 2023-10-26T02:38:35Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4ddfadb (4ddfadb5b5c09d7ac95df6ae8f0b15f9afc69aef)

rust-timer · 2023-10-26T04:37:06Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4ddfadb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.9%	[1.1%, 4.0%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.0%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-1.0%, 4.0%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.6%	[1.4%, 5.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[1.2%, 5.0%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-4.1%, -2.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-4.5%, -0.8%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-4.1%, 5.1%]	8

Cycles

Results

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)	1.9%	[0.8%, 4.3%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-0.8%, 4.3%]	5

Binary size

Results

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 2.7%]	83
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.0%, 3.3%]	26
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.3%, 2.7%]	91

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 304.48 MiB -> 304.49 MiB (0.00%)

saethlin · 2023-10-26T05:08:01Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-10-26T05:09:10Z

⌛ Trying commit dcde30d with merge c7f0427...

Don't treat asserts as a call in cross-crate inlining r? `@ghost`

bors · 2023-10-26T06:30:56Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c7f0427 (c7f04272f0de8d2a5a62dce343201180175525d3)

saethlin · 2025-11-11T21:38:21Z

@bors try jobs=i686-msvc-1,i686-msvc-2,x86_64-msvc-1,x86_64-msvc-2

Don't treat asserts as a call in cross-crate inlining try-job: i686-msvc-1 try-job: i686-msvc-2 try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: x86_64-msvc-2

rust-bors · 2025-11-11T23:24:57Z

💔 Test for 40a2216 failed: CI. Failed jobs:

try - x86_64-msvc-1 (web logs, extended logs)

saethlin · 2025-11-11T23:57:12Z

#148849 Is the fix for the Windows tests I've been fighting with.

… r=wesleywiser Set -Cpanic=abort in windows-msvc stack protector tests I ran into a test failure with the 32-bit windows test on rust-lang#117192, one of the tests has been incorrectly passing (until my change!) because it is picking up the stack protector from another function. I've tried to prevent that happening again by adding CHECK-DAGs for the start and end of each function. I've also done my best to correct the comments, some were based on the fact that we used to run these tests with unwinding panics, but LLVM doesn't add protectors to function with SEH funclets so it's must more straightforward for these tests to use `-Cpanic=abort`.

Set -Cpanic=abort in windows-msvc stack protector tests I ran into a test failure with the 32-bit windows test on #117192, one of the tests has been incorrectly passing (until my change!) because it is picking up the stack protector from another function. I've tried to prevent that happening again by adding CHECK-DAGs for the start and end of each function. I've also done my best to correct the comments, some were based on the fact that we used to run these tests with unwinding panics, but LLVM doesn't add protectors to function with SEH funclets so it's must more straightforward for these tests to use `-Cpanic=abort`.

… r=wesleywiser Set -Cpanic=abort in windows-msvc stack protector tests I ran into a test failure with the 32-bit windows test on rust-lang#117192, one of the tests has been incorrectly passing (until my change!) because it is picking up the stack protector from another function. I've tried to prevent that happening again by adding CHECK-DAGs for the start and end of each function. I've also done my best to correct the comments, some were based on the fact that we used to run these tests with unwinding panics, but LLVM doesn't add protectors to function with SEH funclets so it's must more straightforward for these tests to use `-Cpanic=abort`.

Rollup merge of #148849 - saethlin:windows-stack-protectors, r=wesleywiser Set -Cpanic=abort in windows-msvc stack protector tests I ran into a test failure with the 32-bit windows test on #117192, one of the tests has been incorrectly passing (until my change!) because it is picking up the stack protector from another function. I've tried to prevent that happening again by adding CHECK-DAGs for the start and end of each function. I've also done my best to correct the comments, some were based on the fact that we used to run these tests with unwinding panics, but LLVM doesn't add protectors to function with SEH funclets so it's must more straightforward for these tests to use `-Cpanic=abort`.

rustbot · 2025-12-19T00:23:04Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

saethlin · 2025-12-19T04:03:07Z

@bors r=scottmcm

bors · 2025-12-19T04:03:10Z

📌 Commit 4ff2c5c has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-12-19T04:39:11Z

⌛ Testing commit 4ff2c5c with merge 07a5b02...

bors · 2025-12-19T07:49:31Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing 07a5b02 to main...

github-actions · 2025-12-19T07:52:33Z

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 526a91c (parent) -> 07a5b02 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 07a5b02a2dfa2f1d7fc51b0133d545afc13849dd --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-aarch64-apple: 10044.2s -> 7296.0s (-27.4%)
pr-check-1: 2080.8s -> 1702.0s (-18.2%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-1: 4675.8s -> 3926.6s (-16.0%)
x86_64-gnu: 8793.3s -> 7574.0s (-13.9%)
aarch64-apple: 11578.8s -> 10047.5s (-13.2%)
dist-powerpc64le-linux-gnu: 4947.8s -> 5588.9s (+13.0%)
i686-gnu-2: 6123.1s -> 5344.3s (-12.7%)
x86_64-gnu-distcheck: 8180.5s -> 7143.7s (-12.7%)
x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3541.0s -> 3106.3s (-12.3%)
i686-gnu-nopt-1: 8252.1s -> 7241.0s (-12.3%)

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 · 2025-12-19T08:44:48Z

Finished benchmarking commit (07a5b02): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
a new PR with a fix for the regression.
If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 0.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.9%, 0.8%]	5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.2%, secondary -0.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.5%	[3.5%, 3.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[-1.2%, 3.5%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-1.0%, 0.6%]	5

Bootstrap: 481.711s -> 481.939s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 390.58 MiB -> 390.52 MiB (-0.01%)

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 Oct 25, 2023