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.

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

Split create_def and lowering of lifetimes for opaque types and bare async fns #99867

Merged
merged 56 commits into from
Aug 5, 2022

Conversation

spastorino
Copy link
Member

@spastorino spastorino commented Jul 28, 2022

r? @cjgillot

This work is kind of half-way, but I think it could be merged anyway.
I think we should be able to remove all the vacant arms in new_named_lifetime_with_res, if I'm not wrong that requires visiting more nodes. We can do that as a follow up.
In follow-up PRs, besides the thing mentioned previously, I'll be trying to remove LifetimeCaptureContext, captured_lifetimes as a global data structure, global binders_to_ignore and all their friends :).

Also try to remap in a more general way based on def-ids.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jul 28, 2022
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 28, 2022
@spastorino spastorino force-pushed the refactor-remap-lifetimes branch 6 times, most recently from 2e84851 to 7ad47ea Compare July 28, 2022 23:47
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Jul 29, 2022

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 29, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2022

⌛ Trying commit 7ad47ea4f6cb9c52947e3412e5bf9ab023375d59 with merge c43f4be8df1097e58deddd266b2f364a3d03dc0a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 29, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c43f4be8df1097e58deddd266b2f364a3d03dc0a (c43f4be8df1097e58deddd266b2f364a3d03dc0a)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued c43f4be8df1097e58deddd266b2f364a3d03dc0a with parent ea6ab1b, future comparison URL.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (c43f4be8df1097e58deddd266b2f364a3d03dc0a): comparison url.

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
3.7% 4.5% 2
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) N/A N/A 0

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
  • Secondary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-2.5% -2.5% 1
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) -2.5% -2.5% 1

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.

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

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2

  2. number of relevant changes 2

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 29, 2022
@cjgillot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @spastorino. I'm not sure I understand what this PR does.
From what I gather: this PR mostly collects some of the lifetimes that appear in the return type, and eagerly inserts them into the captures.

  • why not collect all the lifetimes straight away?
  • why not filter HRTB during this collection, instead of later?
  • is there a way to remove those Vacant arms in lower_lifetime_with_res in this PR?

@spastorino
Copy link
Member Author

@cjgillot thanks for the review. First of all, agreed with all your questions and as I've said, this would be the first part of a set of changes that I'd like to land that go in the direction you're saying.

  • why not collect all the lifetimes straight away?

Yes, agreed and this is what I wanted to discuss with you. Maybe if you have some time we should schedule some sync time on zulip?.

  • why not filter HRTB during this collection, instead of later?

Same to this.

  • is there a way to remove those Vacant arms in lower_lifetime_with_res in this PR?

This is the same thing I wonder and I'd like to do. Again if we can discuss this in a synchronous way would be better I believe.

compiler/rustc_ast/src/ast.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast/src/ast.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@spastorino spastorino force-pushed the refactor-remap-lifetimes branch 2 times, most recently from 2493ab6 to 6d79822 Compare August 2, 2022 00:41
@spastorino
Copy link
Member Author

@cjgillot @nikomatsakis have pushed some changes, please check them out.
Anyway this is not working due to the way I'm handling Elided on Rptr, in particular https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99867/files#diff-ad0c15bbde97a607d4758ec7eaf88248be5d6b8ae084dfc84127f81e3f7a9bb4R1488, unsure if that's using the right parent def_id. Any tip would be appreciated.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
// Future<Output = &'1 [ &'2 u32 ]>`.
//
// Then, we will create `fn foo(..) -> Foo<'_, '_>`, and
// hence the elision takes place at the fn site.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This comment is likely out of date, right? Elision is happening in an earlier phase now, I think.

cc @cjgillot

Copy link
Contributor

@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A few doc nits, looks good though!

compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+

Nice work.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 4, 2022

📌 Commit fb7e44dd22c886a0d76c9223df9735cae76b385e has been approved by nikomatsakis

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 4, 2022
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@spastorino
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=nikomatsakis

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 4, 2022

📌 Commit 4170d73 has been approved by nikomatsakis

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 4170d73 with merge cdfd675...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 5, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikomatsakis
Pushing cdfd675 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 5, 2022
@bors bors merged commit cdfd675 into rust-lang:master Aug 5, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.64.0 milestone Aug 5, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (cdfd675): comparison url.

Instruction count

  • Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
1.3% 1.4% 6
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-1.2% -1.2% 1
All 😿🎉 (primary) N/A N/A 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
4.0% 4.0% 1
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) N/A N/A 0

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

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2

  2. number of relevant changes 2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants