Skip to content

Update slice::Iter::rfold to match slice::Iter::fold#119207

Closed
scottmcm wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
scottmcm:manual-index-range-fold
Closed

Update slice::Iter::rfold to match slice::Iter::fold#119207
scottmcm wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
scottmcm:manual-index-range-fold

Conversation

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2023

Adds a new codegen test for rfold, like the one from #106343, and makes a similar fix, updating rfold to work via indices too.

@scottmcm
Update slice::Iter::rfold to match slice::Iter::fold
d75741f 
Like in 106343, including an equivalent codegen test.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 22, 2023

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@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 Dec 22, 2023
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2023

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 22, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 22, 2023

⌛ Trying commit d75741f with merge d40d614...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2023
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#119207 - scottmcm:manual-index-range-fold, r=…
d40d614 
…<try>

Update `slice::Iter::rfold` to match `slice::Iter::fold`

Adds a new codegen test for `rfold`, like the one from rust-lang#106343, and makes a similar fix, updating `rfold` to work via indices too.
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 22, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d40d614 (d40d6149dad661aaf4e42bac19925ed97448cdc9)

1 similar comment
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Dec 22, 2023

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d40d614 (d40d6149dad661aaf4e42bac19925ed97448cdc9)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Dec 22, 2023

Finished benchmarking commit (d40d614): 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)		 0.8% [0.1%, 1.9%] 28
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.4% [0.4%, 0.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.5% [-0.5%, -0.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [-0.5%, 1.9%] 29

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)		 2.7% [0.9%, 6.7%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.4% [0.4%, 0.4%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -3.1% [-5.0%, -2.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.9% [-5.0%, 6.7%] 10

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)		 1.3% [0.8%, 1.8%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.3% [0.8%, 1.8%] 7

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)		 1.0% [0.0%, 3.2%] 73
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.8% [0.4%, 3.1%] 74
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.4% [-0.7%, -0.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.0% [-0.7%, 3.2%] 75

Bootstrap: 673.306s -> 674.344s (0.15%)
Artifact size: 312.81 MiB -> 313.00 MiB (0.06%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Dec 22, 2023
@scottmcm scottmcm closed this Dec 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum

Labels

perf-regression Performance regression. 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.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@scottmcm @rustbot @rust-timer @bors @Mark-Simulacrum