-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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
Remove NtItem
and NtStmt
#138083
Remove NtItem
and NtStmt
#138083
Conversation
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_sanitizers cc @rust-lang/project-exploit-mitigations, @rcvalle Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery |
The rustdoc overflows are probably from the extra passes that rustdoc runs to determine the full set of auto trait implementations to document. |
d4aa97b
to
541d42a
Compare
I added the |
This involves replacing `nt_pretty_printing_compatibility_hack` with `stream_pretty_printing_compatibility_hack`. The handling of statements in `transcribe` is slightly different to other nonterminal kinds, due to the lack of `from_ast` implementation for empty statements. Notable test changes: - `tests/ui/proc-macro/expand-to-derive.rs`: the diff looks large but the only difference is the insertion of a single invisible-delimited group around a metavar.
This is temporarily needed for `x doc compiler` to work. They can be removed once the `Nonterminal` is removed (rust-lang#124141).
This time when converting them to proc-macro `Group` form.
541d42a
to
3378ee1
Compare
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Remove `NtItem` and `NtStmt` Another piece of rust-lang#124141. r? `@petrochenkov`
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (17de919): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text belowBenchmarking 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 @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis 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.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -0.7%, secondary 2.2%)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.
CyclesResults (primary 2.7%, secondary 4.0%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 765.289s -> 764.767s (-0.07%) |
r=me unless you want to check why compiling libc is slow. It it's due to |
From what I remember, @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Post-merge analysis result Test differences
(and 6 additional diffs) |
Finished benchmarking commit (aaa2d47): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text belowOur benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR. Next Steps:
@rustbot label: +perf-regression Instruction countThis 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.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -1.1%)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.
CyclesResults (primary 2.4%, secondary -3.5%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 779.667s -> 779.458s (-0.03%) |
Another piece of #124141.
r? @petrochenkov