Overhaul `ThinVec` usage #100666

nnethercote · 2022-08-17T08:12:08Z

r? @ghost

rustbot · 2022-08-17T08:12:12Z

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

nnethercote · 2022-08-17T08:12:25Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rust-timer · 2022-08-17T08:12:27Z

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors · 2022-08-17T08:12:34Z

⌛ Trying commit 26873fedff6b77b9233a5437b67da4bfd0756e26 with merge 2f4580eb83980655419fbe5c0ddaefdaf513d628...

nnethercote · 2022-08-17T09:01:45Z

rustc exited with signal: 4 (SIGILL) (core dumped)

SIGILL?!

This PR introduces the use of the external thin_vec crate, and I had a different crash (seg fault) in it earlier today. That was caused by calling ThinVec::set_len on an empty ThinVec. I worked around that, and things were running fine on my machine. But now we have this crash on CI, which occurs as soon as the newly built compiler starts being used to compile std. Which suggests something being fairly badly broken.

Uncontrolled crashes are incredibly rare in rustc in my experience, and ThinVec has lots of unsafe code, so I'm going to assume this crash is also due to ThinVec somehow. Though how a SIGILL might be triggered, I don't know.

nnethercote · 2022-08-17T09:05:56Z

Hmm. Because I was suspicious about ThinVec I pushed #100668, which has the parts of the PR prior to the introduction of the external thin_vec crate. And it's crashing with SIGILL on CI as well. So it must be something else.

bors · 2022-08-17T09:36:50Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2f4580eb83980655419fbe5c0ddaefdaf513d628 (2f4580eb83980655419fbe5c0ddaefdaf513d628)

rust-timer · 2022-08-17T09:36:52Z

Queued 2f4580eb83980655419fbe5c0ddaefdaf513d628 with parent 86c6ebe, future comparison URL.

5225225 · 2022-08-17T10:30:05Z

The stdlib has some debug assertions (see #92686) which will core::intrinsics::abort (which is a ud2, which turns into a SIGILL).

It's like that instead of a panic for code size reasons (and a panic might cause worse stuff when code didn't expect ptr::read to panic).

I don't know for sure if it's that, but it might be. See: library/core/src/intrinsics.rs and look for assert_unsafe_precondition.

5225225 · 2022-08-17T10:34:19Z

Yep, it looks to be a debug assertion being tripped. (Slice index out of bounds with get_unchecked)

   Compiling std v0.0.0 (/home/jess/src/rust/library/std)
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'oh no!!', /home/jess/src/rust/library/core/src/slice/index.rs:225:13
stack backtrace:
   0: rust_begin_unwind
             at ./library/std/src/panicking.rs:584:5
   1: core::panicking::panic_fmt
             at ./library/core/src/panicking.rs:142:14
   2: <alloc::vec::Vec<rustc_ast::ptr::P<rustc_ast::ast::Expr>> as rustc_data_structures::map_in_place::MapInPlace<rustc_ast::ptr::P<rustc_ast::ast::Expr>>>::flat_map_in_place::<rustc_ast::mut_visit::visit_exprs<rustc_expand::expand::InvocationCollector>::{closure#0}, core::option::Option<rustc_ast::ptr::P<rustc_ast::ast::Expr>>>
   3: <rustc_ast::ast::Crate as rustc_expand::expand::InvocationCollectorNode>::noop_visit::<rustc_expand::expand::InvocationCollector>
             at ./compiler/rustc_expand/src/expand.rs:1371:9
   4: <rustc_expand::expand::InvocationCollector>::visit_node::<rustc_ast::ast::Crate>::{closure#2}
             at ./compiler/rustc_expand/src/expand.rs:1737:61
   5: <rustc_expand::expand::InvocationCollector>::visit_node::<rustc_ast::ast::Crate>
             at ./compiler/rustc_expand/src/expand.rs:1737:21
   6: <rustc_expand::expand::MacroExpander>::collect_invocations
             at ./compiler/rustc_expand/src/expand.rs:557:13
   7: <rustc_expand::expand::MacroExpander>::fully_expand_fragment
             at ./compiler/rustc_expand/src/expand.rs:392:13
   8: <rustc_expand::expand::MacroExpander>::expand_crate
             at ./compiler/rustc_expand/src/expand.rs:379:21
   9: rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand::{closure#1}::{closure#1}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/passes.rs:336:50
  10: <rustc_data_structures::profiling::VerboseTimingGuard>::run::<rustc_ast::ast::Crate, rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand::{closure#1}::{closure#1}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/profiling.rs:739:9
  11: <rustc_session::session::Session>::time::<rustc_ast::ast::Crate, rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand::{closure#1}::{closure#1}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_session/src/utils.rs:10:9
  12: rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand::{closure#1}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/passes.rs:336:21
  13: <rustc_data_structures::profiling::VerboseTimingGuard>::run::<core::result::Result<rustc_ast::ast::Crate, rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand::{closure#1}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/profiling.rs:739:9
  14: <rustc_session::session::Session>::time::<core::result::Result<rustc_ast::ast::Crate, rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand::{closure#1}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_session/src/utils.rs:10:9
  15: rustc_interface::passes::configure_and_expand
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/passes.rs:288:13
  16: <rustc_interface::queries::Queries>::expansion::{closure#0}::{closure#0}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/queries.rs:181:17
  17: <rustc_interface::passes::boxed_resolver::BoxedResolver>::access::<<rustc_interface::queries::Queries>::expansion::{closure#0}::{closure#0}, core::result::Result<rustc_ast::ast::Crate, rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>>
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/passes.rs:132:13
  18: <rustc_interface::queries::Queries>::expansion::{closure#0}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/queries.rs:180:25
  19: <rustc_interface::queries::Query<(alloc::rc::Rc<rustc_ast::ast::Crate>, alloc::rc::Rc<core::cell::RefCell<rustc_interface::passes::boxed_resolver::BoxedResolver>>, alloc::rc::Rc<rustc_lint::context::LintStore>)>>::compute::<<rustc_interface::queries::Queries>::expansion::{closure#0}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/queries.rs:37:28
  20: <rustc_interface::queries::Queries>::expansion
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/queries.rs:169:9
  21: rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}::{closure#2}
             at ./compiler/rustc_driver/src/lib.rs:358:13
  22: <rustc_interface::interface::Compiler>::enter::<rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}::{closure#2}, core::result::Result<core::option::Option<rustc_interface::queries::Linker>, rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>>
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/queries.rs:381:19
  23: rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}
             at ./compiler/rustc_driver/src/lib.rs:309:22
  24: rustc_interface::interface::create_compiler_and_run::<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>::{closure#1}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/interface.rs:323:13
  25: rustc_span::with_source_map::<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_interface::interface::create_compiler_and_run<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>::{closure#1}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_span/src/lib.rs:986:5
  26: rustc_interface::interface::create_compiler_and_run::<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/interface.rs:317:5
  27: rustc_interface::interface::run_compiler::<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>::{closure#0}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/interface.rs:339:12
  28: <scoped_tls::ScopedKey<rustc_span::SessionGlobals>>::set::<rustc_interface::interface::run_compiler<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>::{closure#0}, core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>>
             at /home/jess/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/scoped-tls-1.0.0/src/lib.rs:137:9
  29: rustc_span::create_session_globals_then::<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_interface::interface::run_compiler<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>::{closure#0}>
             at ./compiler/rustc_span/src/lib.rs:112:5
  30: rustc_interface::util::run_in_thread_pool_with_globals::<rustc_interface::interface::run_compiler<core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>, rustc_driver::run_compiler::{closure#1}>::{closure#0}, core::result::Result<(), rustc_errors::ErrorGuaranteed>>::{closure#0}
             at ./compiler/rustc_interface/src/util.rs:159:32
note: Some details are omitted, run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=full` for a verbose backtrace.

This is on 26873fedff6b77b9233a5437b67da4bfd0756e26

rust-timer · 2022-08-17T10:51:41Z

Finished benchmarking commit (2f4580eb83980655419fbe5c0ddaefdaf513d628): comparison url.

Instruction count

Primary benchmarks: mixed results
Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean¹	max	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	1.4%	98
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	2.1%	63
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	-1.4%	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	-1.0%	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	1.4%	109

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

Primary benchmarks: mixed results
Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean¹	max	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.7%	3.0%	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	3.8%	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	-1.8%	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	-3.3%	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	3.0%	21

Cycles

Results

Primary benchmarks: ❌ relevant regressions found
Secondary benchmarks: ❌ relevant regressions found

	mean¹	max	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	4.4%	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	4.1%	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	4.4%	6

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³
number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

nnethercote · 2022-08-17T11:26:20Z

@5225225: thanks for the info! So I would need to enable debug assertions locally to see the SIGILL? You got a backtrace when you ran it locally. Is there a reason why the crash on CI has so little information?

5225225 · 2022-08-17T11:29:30Z

I edited the debug assertions to be a panic instead of an abort, and then used RUST_BACKTRACE=1.

See:

rust/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs

Lines 2120 to 2136 in 86c6ebe

    
           #[allow_internal_unstable(const_eval_select)] // permit this to be called in stably-const fn 
        
           macro_rules! assert_unsafe_precondition { 
        
               ($e:expr) => { 
        
                   if cfg!(debug_assertions) { 
        
                       // Use a closure so that we can capture arbitrary expressions from the invocation 
        
                       let runtime = || { 
        
                           if !$e { 
        
                               // abort instead of panicking to reduce impact on code size 
        
                               ::core::intrinsics::abort(); 
        
                           } 
        
                       }; 
        
                       const fn comptime() {} 
        
                       ::core::intrinsics::const_eval_select((), comptime, runtime); 
        
                   } 
        
               }; 
        
           }

You want to make that ::core::intrinsics::abort into panic!("oh no"); or something. That'll at least give you a backtrace.

5225225 · 2022-08-17T15:50:17Z

I've done some more debugging work, and it's a slice get_unchecked (using usize as an index) where the index is 0, and the slice length is 0.

I highly suspect the changes to compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/map_in_place.rs. Notably, we changed pointer arithmetic to a get_unchecked.

5225225 · 2022-08-17T15:55:11Z

Right. I think I know why now.

It's the get_unchecked. We're setting the length to 0, but that means you can't use .get_unchecked or it's UB.

the set_len is correct, but you have to keep the pointer arithmetic. (To be polite, you could debug_assert that your pointer arithmetic offset is < old_len)

nnethercote · 2022-08-18T01:31:14Z

It's the get_unchecked. We're setting the length to 0, but that means you can't use .get_unchecked or it's UB.

Oh, I understand what happened. Earlier in the year I wrote some code that moved flat_map_in_place into a macro, but I never merged it. Some time later, these get_unchecked checks were added, and flat_map_in_place was updated to avoid using get_unchecked. Then yesterday I resurrected my old code, not noticing that flat_map_in_place had changed, thus reinserting the get_unchecked calls. My fault for not comparing more closely my old code vs. the current code.

Thanks again for the assistance, @5225225!

rustbot · 2022-08-18T11:47:16Z

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

nnethercote · 2022-08-18T11:47:29Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rust-timer · 2022-08-18T11:47:30Z

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors · 2022-08-18T11:47:37Z

⌛ Trying commit 7b8036b96c28b0620e45df95aba0ac4e227fc718 with merge fe6140f28760415adc7f741133b30398a78a44ea...

rust-timer · 2022-08-25T06:21:44Z

Finished benchmarking commit (fe7f01b53ec66f47a4b76ecf575e9d7cc0875d6f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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-review -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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.6%, -0.4%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.7%, -0.5%]	21
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-1.6%, 0.4%]	33

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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.0%, 3.0%]	25
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[1.2%, 3.5%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-4.5%, -0.6%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-3.3%, -1.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-4.5%, 3.0%]	35

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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.1%, 3.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[1.3%, 3.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.1%, 3.0%]	2

the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³
number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

nnethercote · 2022-09-01T23:45:31Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rust-timer · 2022-09-01T23:45:33Z

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors · 2022-09-01T23:45:39Z

⌛ Trying commit 19e82aa4fe4005a5292e3c0f157fde2a5e8bada9 with merge 0375fd49348116907547d1840e4d5c6dc484a828...

bors · 2022-09-02T01:36:04Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0375fd49348116907547d1840e4d5c6dc484a828 (0375fd49348116907547d1840e4d5c6dc484a828)

rust-timer · 2022-09-02T01:36:06Z

Queued 0375fd49348116907547d1840e4d5c6dc484a828 with parent 2e35f95, future comparison URL.

rust-timer · 2022-09-02T03:04:16Z

Finished benchmarking commit (0375fd49348116907547d1840e4d5c6dc484a828): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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-review -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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[0.4%, 2.1%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.2%, 1.6%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.5%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[-0.4%, 2.1%]	16

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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.7%	[0.8%, 3.1%]	25
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[1.9%, 6.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-2.1%, -0.6%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-9.6%, -1.9%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-2.1%, 3.1%]	35

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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.1%, -2.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1

the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³
number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

nnethercote · 2022-09-07T05:58:04Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rust-timer · 2022-09-07T05:58:05Z

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

bors · 2022-09-07T05:58:12Z

⌛ Trying commit 7b7fee4 with merge bbb70faad6a3f11ab6a2bfa5ffe30c95b40161a9...

bors · 2022-09-07T07:16:56Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bbb70faad6a3f11ab6a2bfa5ffe30c95b40161a9 (bbb70faad6a3f11ab6a2bfa5ffe30c95b40161a9)

rust-timer · 2022-09-07T07:16:58Z

Queued bbb70faad6a3f11ab6a2bfa5ffe30c95b40161a9 with parent 8c41305, future comparison URL.

rust-timer · 2022-09-07T08:30:56Z

Finished benchmarking commit (bbb70faad6a3f11ab6a2bfa5ffe30c95b40161a9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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-review -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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.2%, 1.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.6%, -0.3%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	2

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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.4%	[1.2%, 6.8%]	17
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[1.4%, 5.5%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.8%, -0.9%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-7.0%, -1.7%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[-1.8%, 6.8%]	27

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.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³
number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

apiraino · 2022-10-05T13:45:48Z

@nnethercote you have this under control, correct? (just checking PRs without review activity for a while)
thanks!

nnethercote · 2022-10-05T21:24:33Z

I have several overlapping PRs that are all trying to reduce AST node sizes, coming from different angles, e.g. #101562, #101885, #102000. Those other ones are more fundamental, so I'll close this one.

rustbot added T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Aug 17, 2022

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 17, 2022

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Aug 17, 2022

nnethercote force-pushed the overhaul-ThinVec branch from 26873fe to 7b8036b Compare August 18, 2022 11:47

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 18, 2022

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 25, 2022

nnethercote mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2022

Overhaul ThinVec usage even more #101028

Closed

nnethercote force-pushed the overhaul-ThinVec branch from bd0be08 to 19e82aa Compare September 1, 2022 23:44

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 1, 2022

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 2, 2022

nnethercote added 4 commits September 7, 2022 11:04

Use ThinVec in ast::Path.

fe11492

Use ThinVec in ast::Generics and related types.

68b527e

Use ThinVec in ast::WhereClause.

6d0b6fa

Use ThinVec in ast::Impl and related types.

7b7fee4

nnethercote force-pushed the overhaul-ThinVec branch from 19e82aa to 7b7fee4 Compare September 7, 2022 05:57

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 7, 2022

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 7, 2022

nnethercote closed this Oct 5, 2022

Overhaul ThinVec usage #100666

Overhaul ThinVec usage #100666

Conversation

nnethercote commented Aug 17, 2022

rustbot commented Aug 17, 2022

nnethercote commented Aug 17, 2022

rust-timer commented Aug 17, 2022

bors commented Aug 17, 2022

This comment has been minimized.

nnethercote commented Aug 17, 2022

nnethercote commented Aug 17, 2022

bors commented Aug 17, 2022

rust-timer commented Aug 17, 2022

5225225 commented Aug 17, 2022

5225225 commented Aug 17, 2022 • edited Loading

rust-timer commented Aug 17, 2022

Footnotes

nnethercote commented Aug 17, 2022

5225225 commented Aug 17, 2022

5225225 commented Aug 17, 2022

5225225 commented Aug 17, 2022

nnethercote commented Aug 18, 2022

rustbot commented Aug 18, 2022

nnethercote commented Aug 18, 2022

rust-timer commented Aug 18, 2022

bors commented Aug 18, 2022

rust-timer commented Aug 25, 2022

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Footnotes

nnethercote commented Sep 1, 2022

rust-timer commented Sep 1, 2022

bors commented Sep 1, 2022

bors commented Sep 2, 2022

rust-timer commented Sep 2, 2022

rust-timer commented Sep 2, 2022

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Footnotes

nnethercote commented Sep 7, 2022

rust-timer commented Sep 7, 2022

bors commented Sep 7, 2022

bors commented Sep 7, 2022

rust-timer commented Sep 7, 2022

rust-timer commented Sep 7, 2022

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Footnotes

apiraino commented Oct 5, 2022

nnethercote commented Oct 5, 2022

Overhaul `ThinVec` usage #100666

Overhaul `ThinVec` usage #100666

5225225 commented Aug 17, 2022 •

edited

Loading