Use query for Variant InhabitedPredicate

[camsteffen]

View all comments

It looks like there may be some benefit from caching.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in exhaustiveness checking

cc @Nadrieril

Some changes occurred in match checking

cc @Nadrieril

[rustbot]

r? @folkertdev

rustbot has assigned @folkertdev.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler, types
• compiler, types expanded to 74 candidates
• Random selection from 17 candidates

[camsteffen]

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[Nadrieril]

r? me

I left a few comments as I was passing by but the most important is the perf run ofc

[Nadrieril]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 2421524 (242152418e59c924e48149b9736f96f695f67745)
Base parent: 234c31c (234c31cd674e11703f15d290cba7ff81dfe8b4b8)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2421524): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary -0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.5%	[5.1%, 8.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-4.1%, -2.7%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary -2.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.8%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Binary size

Results (secondary -0.1%)

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)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 488.235s -> 485.708s (-0.52%)
Artifact size: 392.45 MiB -> 391.72 MiB (-0.19%)

[Nadrieril]

Small but with a green tendency, I say why not

[Nadrieril]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 553f6c8 has been approved by Nadrieril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rustbot]

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.

[camsteffen]

@rustbot ready

[Nadrieril]

r=me when green!

[camsteffen]

@Nadrieril friendly bump - it looks like you meant to r+.

[Nadrieril]

oh, thanks for the bump! there was miscommunication: "r=me" means "you can @bors r=Nadrieril yourself" so I had filed that under "taken care of". let's merge!

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 6eff1b1 has been approved by Nadrieril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[JonathanBrouwer]

Happy to throw this in a rollup
@bors rollup=iffy

[camsteffen]

I think I need a delegate to do the r=

[Nadrieril]

If you have r+ rights you don't need a delegate; I assumed you did because you're a member of the rust-lang org!

[camsteffen]

Hmmm it's plausible 😄

[Nadrieril]

😁 Either way, sorry for the confusion!

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: Nadrieril
Duration: 3h 10m 46s
Pushing da47efd to main...

[github-actions]

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 7cef43f (parent) -> da47efd (this PR)

Test differences

Show 8 test diffs

8 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 da47efd27287edb02eed0b5a178a165c8f258e37 --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

1. x86_64-msvc-ext2: 1h 12m -> 1h 50m (+51.9%)
2. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 52m 46s -> 1h 16m (+45.6%)
3. dist-x86_64-msvc-alt: 2h 42m -> 1h 32m (-42.7%)
4. dist-sparcv9-solaris: 1h 11m -> 1h 40m (+40.0%)
5. dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw: 1h 35m -> 2h 9m (+35.2%)
6. dist-x86_64-musl: 2h 27m -> 1h 37m (-33.7%)
7. x86_64-gnu-distcheck: 2h 15m -> 1h 31m (-32.0%)
8. dist-various-1: 40m 54s -> 53m 47s (+31.5%)
9. pr-check-1: 27m 6s -> 35m 27s (+30.8%)
10. armhf-gnu: 1h 11m -> 1h 32m (+30.1%)

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]

Finished benchmarking commit (da47efd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.7%, secondary -0.8%)

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)	4.2%	[2.3%, 6.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-4.3%, -2.7%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[2.5%, 2.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[2.5%, 2.8%]	2

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 478.023s -> 479.814s (0.37%)
Artifact size: 404.16 MiB -> 403.41 MiB (-0.18%)

[Nadrieril]

It's tiny and secondary, looks like noise to me.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged