Skip to content

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops#120762

Draft
saethlin wants to merge 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
saethlin:assume-in-get-unchecked
Draft

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops#120762
saethlin wants to merge 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
saethlin:assume-in-get-unchecked

Conversation

@saethlin

@saethlin saethlin commented Feb 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Feb 8, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 6d8cb55 to b9947b3 Compare February 8, 2024 00:33
@saethlin

saethlin commented Feb 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 8, 2024
@bors

bors commented Feb 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Trying commit b9947b3 with merge a8aa174...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors

bors commented Feb 8, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a8aa174 (a8aa1746af7b61b15a32955c227c47dfb0d7c57f)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a8aa174): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.8%] 12
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.4%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 0.8%] 12

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)
3.9% [0.5%, 10.4%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.5% [-4.3%, -2.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [-4.3%, 10.4%] 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)
1.2% [1.2%, 1.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-6.2% [-6.2%, -6.2%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [-0.6%, 1.2%] 2

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%, 0.5%] 35
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.1%, 0.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.9%, -0.0%] 31
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.0% [-0.9%, 0.5%] 66

Bootstrap: 662.945s -> 662.852s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 308.24 MiB -> 308.20 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Feb 8, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from b9947b3 to 8063335 Compare February 10, 2024 11:19
@saethlin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 10, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors

bors commented Feb 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Trying commit 8063335 with merge 3d763f6...

@bors

bors commented Feb 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3d763f6 (3d763f6f496d0fd5c25aa650565c36c1775499ba)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (3d763f6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 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)
4.3% [0.4%, 7.3%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-8.0% [-10.7%, -5.7%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.3% [-3.3%, -3.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.8% [-10.7%, 7.3%] 8

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)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.7%] 45
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-1.1%, -0.0%] 17
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-1.1%, 0.7%] 62

Bootstrap: 666.007s -> 668.01s (0.30%)
Artifact size: 308.04 MiB -> 307.93 MiB (-0.04%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 10, 2024
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 8063335 to 2c76737 Compare February 14, 2024 04:18
@saethlin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Now with LLVM 18!
@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Feb 14, 2024
@bors

bors commented Feb 14, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Trying commit 2c76737 with merge 61c0f10...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2024
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors

bors commented Feb 14, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 61c0f10 (61c0f10e6445b193248a77f2cf0bd59fead8bfd3)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 3, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 3, 2025
…<try>

Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops

r? `@ghost`
@bors

bors commented May 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⌛ Trying commit 1f4a2bc with merge 17cacb7...

@bors

bors commented May 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 17cacb7 (17cacb7eb83a60d51e28aa046469b4b2b2694d44)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (17cacb7): comparison URL.

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

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 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)
0.7% [0.2%, 3.0%] 13
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.3%, -0.2%] 7
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.3% [-0.3%, -0.3%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [-0.3%, 3.0%] 20

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.7%, secondary -1.9%)

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)
2.8% [0.7%, 7.1%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.3% [-7.6%, -0.4%] 31
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.9% [-1.9%, -1.9%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.7% [-7.6%, 7.1%] 37

Cycles

Results (primary -0.3%)

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)
0.8% [0.4%, 3.2%] 11
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.7% [-1.4%, -0.4%] 32
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-1.4%, 3.2%] 43

Binary size

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary -0.0%)

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)
0.4% [0.0%, 1.2%] 9
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.2% [-0.4%, -0.0%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 10
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-0.4%, 1.2%] 13

Bootstrap: 768.722s -> 771.143s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 365.56 MiB -> 365.51 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label May 3, 2025
@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 1f4a2bc to 3cd517a Compare October 6, 2025 01:07
@saethlin

saethlin commented Oct 6, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

There's been a new LLVM release since my last perf run
@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2025
Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 6, 2025
@rust-bors

rust-bors Bot commented Oct 6, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d2ceee7 (d2ceee7e2eba168123d21883cddb60e573d51e85, parent: 839222065a44ac21c15df68ed2f2f3c0127b0b8e)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d2ceee7): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

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)
0.5% [0.3%, 0.6%] 8
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.5%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.3% [-0.5%, -0.2%] 5
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.4% [-1.0%, -0.0%] 14
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-0.5%, 0.6%] 13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.7%, secondary -2.7%)

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)
1.7% [0.8%, 2.4%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.7% [-4.8%, -1.0%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-4.1% [-6.9%, -0.8%] 15
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.7% [-4.8%, -1.0%] 4

Cycles

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.0% [2.2%, 4.2%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.9% [-4.8%, -1.2%] 5
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary -0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.3%] 11
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-0.3%, -0.0%] 10
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.3%, 0.3%] 21

Bootstrap: 471.555s -> 472.443s (0.19%)
Artifact size: 388.38 MiB -> 388.01 MiB (-0.10%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 6, 2025
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@saethlin saethlin force-pushed the assume-in-get-unchecked branch from 3cd517a to 448df53 Compare June 13, 2026 16:13
@saethlin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 13, 2026
rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2026
Expand assumes to the other unchecked slice ops
@rust-bors

rust-bors Bot commented Jun 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: cb7c838 (cb7c838e534b5e2fb0c7aef4fb8f92ffea8fd6b8, parent: 8d6b38095ef12416976655207031eeb4337df71b)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (cb7c838): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

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)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.5%] 76
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.2%, 0.6%] 33
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.1%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.2%, 0.5%] 76

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.2%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
3.6% [2.5%, 4.6%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-6.4% [-6.4%, -6.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-6.4%, 4.6%] 3

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.7%)

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)
2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.1% [0.0%, 1.1%] 48
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.1%] 24
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-0.4%, -0.0%] 6
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [-0.4%, 1.1%] 54

Bootstrap: 517.524s -> 521.467s (0.76%)
Artifact size: 400.85 MiB -> 400.96 MiB (0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

perf-regression Performance regression. S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants