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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Rollup of 3 pull requests #134756

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Dec 25, 2024
Merged

Rollup of 3 pull requests #134756

merged 11 commits into from
Dec 25, 2024

Conversation

jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

Zalathar and others added 11 commits December 25, 2024 11:40
@Zalathar
Rename tests/ui/coverage-attr/no-coverage.rs to allowed-positions.rs
d4005b6
@jyn514
Default to short backtraces for dev builds of rustc itself
c7a28d5 
A dev build almost certainly means that whoever's built the compiler
has the opportunity to rerun it to collect a more complete trace. So
we don't need to default to a complete trace; we should hide irrelevant
details by default.
@Zalathar
Fully redact the [E0788] error message in tests, to make changes easier
5e98118
@Zalathar
Expand the main test for where the coverage attribute is allowed
9124662 
Some of these cases are also implicitly checked by other tests, but it's
helpful to also explicitly list them in the main test.
@Zalathar
Overhaul error messages for disallowed coverage attributes
3996209
@heiher
Enable LSX feature for LoongArch OpenHarmony target
652e48b
@Zalathar
Rewrite the error-code docs for coverage attributes [E0788]
db02b1d
@Zalathar
Un-redact one occurrence of "coverage attribute not allowed here"
e48fc62
@jieyouxu
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134743 - jyn514:rustc-dev-short-backtraces,…
aef9d6b 
… r=jieyouxu

Default to short backtraces for dev builds of rustc itself

A dev build almost certainly means that whoever's built the compiler has the opportunity to rerun it to collect a more complete trace. So we don't need to default to a complete trace; we should hide irrelevant details by default.
@jieyouxu
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134750 - Zalathar:coverage-attr-errors, r=j…
db3404a 
…ieyouxu

Update `#[coverage(..)]` attribute error messages to match the current implementation

The allowed positions for `#[coverage(..)]` attributes were expanded by rust-lang#126721, but the corresponding error messages were never updated to reflect the new behaviour.

Part of rust-lang#134749.
@jieyouxu
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134751 - heiher:loong-ohos-lsx, r=jieyouxu
d04f8bd 
Enable LSX feature for LoongArch OpenHarmony target
@rustbot 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. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Dec 25, 2024
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 25, 2024

📌 Commit d04f8bd has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors 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 Dec 25, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 25, 2024

⌛ Testing commit d04f8bd with merge f432d5d...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 25, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing f432d5d to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 25, 2024
@bors bors merged commit f432d5d into rust-lang:master Dec 25, 2024
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.85.0 milestone Dec 25, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#134743 Default to short backtraces for dev builds of rustc itself 22cc2e2027efca971e114ff35a57965c8855d9c9 (link)
#134750 Update #[coverage(..)] attribute error messages to match … 1a48e2347adffb1c94f5948928a0c4a1581cb7ff (link)
#134751 Enable LSX feature for LoongArch OpenHarmony target 82a031adc658e8634581e6d0f236833f83ba4fdf (link)

previous master: a0a5c42346

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@jieyouxu jieyouxu deleted the rollup-suec48x branch December 25, 2024 14:15
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (f432d5d): 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

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)		 0.2% [0.1%, 0.2%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.1%, 0.2%] 2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.1%, 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)		 3.1% [3.0%, 3.2%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 5.3% [5.3%, 5.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.4% [-2.6%, -2.2%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.1% [3.0%, 3.2%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary -5.1%)

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -5.1% [-5.1%, -5.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 763.617s -> 764.674s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 330.57 MiB -> 330.52 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Dec 25, 2024
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member Author

I don't think any rolled up PR here are perf sensitive 🤔

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.85.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@jieyouxu @bors @rust-timer @rustbot @Zalathar @jyn514 @heiher