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

Revert 133858 due to perf regression #135263

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Revert 133858 due to perf regression #135263

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+630 −733

Conversation

lqd
Copy link
Member

@lqd lqd commented Jan 8, 2025 •
edited
Loading

This PR prepares a revert of #133858 due to the unexpected perf regressions.

cc PR author @dianne and reviewer @lcnr

Opening as draft to leave some time for @dianne to take a look in case the fix is obvious. If not, or if they don't have time to look into it soon, we can land this revert. Once the issue is fixed in the original PR we can reland it with ease.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 8, 2025

r? @BoxyUwU

rustbot has assigned @BoxyUwU.
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

@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. labels Jan 8, 2025
@lqd lqd mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2025
Merged
@lqd
Copy link
Member Author

lqd commented Jan 8, 2025

Ok, this is going to miss the nightly cutoff but it's fine.

@lqd lqd marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2025 20:27
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 8, 2025

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

@lqd
Copy link
Member Author

lqd commented Jan 8, 2025

fml

@lqd
Revert "Auto merge of rust-lang#133858 - dianne:better-blame-constrai…
977e6c8 
…nts-for-static, r=lcnr"

This reverts commit 6afee11, reversing
changes made to 9c87288.
@BoxyUwU
Copy link
Member

BoxyUwU commented Jan 8, 2025

As long as this doesnt miss the beta cut off in like a month its technically fine right? It's "only" a 20% regression to some crates on nightly

@lqd
Copy link
Member Author

lqd commented Jan 8, 2025

The revert doesn't apply cleanly since #134523 landed in the meantime.

I've rebased to fix the conflicts, hopefully correctly to change the new code from #134523 to match the pre-revert state -- and #133858 landing also created conflicts for #134523. It's conflict city over here. That will make #134523's beta backport harder...

As long as this doesnt miss the beta cut off in like a month its technically fine right?

Maybe not fine per se, but in a sense yes, and in another sense less so: if another perf run had been done pre-merge, the PR likely wouldn't have landed yet. A revert was requested and we usually are revert-happy: it's usually easier to investigate issues without any additional time pressure on the author.

@BoxyUwU
Copy link
Member

BoxyUwU commented Jan 8, 2025

Ah right... merge conflicts

@lqd
Copy link
Member Author

lqd commented Jan 8, 2025

This code should generally be slow-moving, but yes it'd be nice if not too much code started relying on #133858.

compiler-errors
compiler-errors reviewed Jan 8, 2025
View reviewed changes
compiler/rustc_borrowck/src/lib.rs
@@ -1207,7 +1206,15 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> MirBorrowckCtxt<'a, '_, 'tcx> {
borrowed,
|diag| {
session_diagnostics::TailExprDropOrder { borrowed }.decorate_lint(diag);
explain.add_explanation_to_diagnostic(&this, diag, "", None, None);
explain.add_explanation_to_diagnostic(
this.infcx.tcx,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ya this is right.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@compiler-errors compiler-errors compiler-errors left review comments

Assignees

@BoxyUwU BoxyUwU

Labels
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.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@lqd @rustbot @BoxyUwU @compiler-errors