resolve: Evaluate private visibilities eagerly in eff vis computation by petrochenkov · Pull Request #156185 · rust-lang/rust

petrochenkov · 2026-05-05T11:00:17Z

It's cheaper to evaluate them now when Declarations keep their parent modules.

rustbot · 2026-05-05T11:00:21Z

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
compiler expanded to 73 candidates
Random selection from 19 candidates

petrochenkov · 2026-05-05T11:00:26Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

resolve: Try removing questionable optimizations in eff vis computation

rust-bors · 2026-05-05T13:09:37Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b88d160 (b88d160c3a88b6a02a3856463a035a8b334c6f57, parent: 4feb7221f4d445120a5061b16ce7222adbfdf6f6)

rust-timer · 2026-05-05T13:51:18Z

Finished benchmarking commit (b88d160): comparison URL.

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

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.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never
@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)	1.3%	[0.2%, 5.4%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.1%, 4.4%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-0.3%, 5.4%]	30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.7%, 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)	2.6%	[1.5%, 3.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.0%, 1.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[-2.1%, 3.2%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary 3.5%, secondary 1.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.7%	[2.5%, 6.0%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[0.7%, 3.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.5%	[-2.2%, 6.0%]	6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 495.518s -> 495.363s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 394.42 MiB -> 394.49 MiB (0.02%)

petrochenkov · 2026-05-05T15:46:43Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

resolve: Try removing questionable optimizations in eff vis computation

petrochenkov · 2026-05-05T17:20:45Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

folkertdev · 2026-05-09T08:51:04Z

@rustbot reroll

petrochenkov · 2026-05-09T11:03:54Z

cc @mu001999

resolve: Set correct parent and expansion for `self` declarations Follow up to rust-lang#146972 and rust-lang#154313. The `parent` seems to not be used yet, it will ICE if used (rust-lang#156185 uses it). The `expn_id` is only relevant to macros 2.0, I won't bother coming up with a test.

rustbot · 2026-05-10T05:10:26Z

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.

petrochenkov · 2026-05-10T05:12:02Z

Switched to the second variant from #156185 (comment), it seems to be slightly simpler to reason about.
r? @mu001999

mu001999 · 2026-05-10T06:37:50Z

@bors r+

rust-bors · 2026-05-10T06:37:53Z

📌 Commit cc630bc has been approved by mu001999

It is now in the queue for this repository.

matthiaskrgr · 2026-05-10T09:18:04Z

@bors p=5

rust-bors · 2026-05-10T12:41:34Z

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: mu001999
Duration: 3h 13m 1s
Pushing 99eed20 to main...

github-actions · 2026-05-10T12:44:17Z

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 d1961be (parent) -> 99eed20 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 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 99eed207b47aca1fec5c665531db8e948a92d0ca --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

x86_64-rust-for-linux: 34m 45s -> 54m 52s (+57.9%)
i686-msvc-1: 2h 23m -> 2h 59m (+25.1%)
x86_64-gnu: 1h 46m -> 2h 12m (+24.5%)
x86_64-msvc-2: 1h 59m -> 2h 28m (+24.1%)
dist-x86_64-msvc-alt: 2h 11m -> 2h 39m (+21.6%)
dist-ohos-armv7: 1h 14m -> 59m 43s (-20.4%)
pr-check-1: 27m 56s -> 33m 37s (+20.3%)
x86_64-msvc-ext1: 2h 5m -> 1h 40m (-19.9%)
pr-check-2: 38m 6s -> 45m 37s (+19.7%)
dist-arm-linux-musl: 1h 25m -> 1h 42m (+19.5%)

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.

rustbot assigned folkertdev May 5, 2026

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 5, 2026