-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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.
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
Rollup of 5 pull requests #114492
Rollup of 5 pull requests #114492
Conversation
we previously had incorrect universes in the query response.
update overflow handling in the new trait solver implements https://hackmd.io/QY0dfEOgSNWwU4oiGnVRLw?view. I want to clean up this doc and add it to the rustc-dev-guide, but I think this PR is ready for merge as is, even without the dev-guide entry. r? `@compiler-errors`
…lor-27, r=notriddle Migrate GUI colors test to original CSS color format Follow-up of rust-lang#111459. r? `@notriddle`
Fix ui-fulldeps missing the `internal_features` lint on stage 0 Similar to rust-lang#114102, `ui-fulldeps --stage=1` builds using the the stage 0 compiler instead of the stage 1 compiler. That means that the new `internal_features` lint is referencing a lint that does not exist. Gate the flag it properly until the next feature bump. Maybe we should just add ui-fulldeps stage 1 into CI somewhere so this is flagged before landing.
…, r=compiler-errors Fix a typo in the error reporting for sealed traits. Fixes a typo in error reporting: "implelement" -> "implement"
…114423-test-names, r=compiler-errors Rename issue rust-lang#114423 test files to include context Addresses feedback given in rust-lang#114461 (comment) r? `@estebank`
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 90f0b24ad3 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
Finished benchmarking commit (fca59ab): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDEDNext Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesResultsThis 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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 650.303s -> 650.338s (0.01%) |
@rust-timer build 72c7f0ec33b0b7dc5d13a562527c6ae4d578125b (the only thing that comes to mind) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This PR should be self-contained within the new solver, but we'll see. tt-muncher check looks like a bump back to steady state. And the hyper doc regression looks possibly "expected" with the rustdoc PR in the rollup. Unless you're trying to find the source of the wins: in that case I'd think it's just the ripples of the incr comp regression noise we've been seeing in the last few merges. (kinda looks like the top of the batman symbol) |
I was actually worried about this. |
Since there's no PR involved in CTFE here, I was thinking it was some noise, like this also happened a couple weeks ago in https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=1c44af9b791c16557b5bf606707bb76df979134a&end=cec34a43b1b14f4e39363f3b283d7ac4f593ee81&stat=cycles:u |
Finished benchmarking commit (72c7f0ec33b0b7dc5d13a562527c6ae4d578125b): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDEDInstruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesResultsThis 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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 650.303s -> 649.897s (-0.06%) |
@lqd good catch, I didn't know that it blipped recently. Given that the perf. run didn't return anything, and the other PRs should be harmless, I think this can be triaged as resolved. |
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
Successful merges:
internal_features
lint on stage 0 #114482 (Fix ui-fulldeps missing theinternal_features
lint on stage 0)compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs
#114423 test files to include context)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup