Skip to content

Run wfcheck in one big loop instead of per module #141968

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2025
Merged

Run wfcheck in one big loop instead of per module #141968

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 5, 2025

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented Jun 3, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Maybe we can merge this big loop in the future with the par_hir_body_owners call below and run typeck only on items that didn't fail wfcheck. For now let's just see if perf likes it, as it by itself should be beneficial to parallel rustc

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 3, 2025

r? @wesleywiser

rustbot has assigned @wesleywiser.
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

@rustbot 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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jun 3, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jun 3, 2025

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 3, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 82ed50c with merge 52d4d1d…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 3, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #141968 - oli-obk:wfck-everything-at-once, r=<try>
52d4d1d 
Run wfcheck in one big loop instead of per module

Maybe we can merge this big loop with the `par_hir_body_owners` call below and run typeck only on items that didn't fail wfcheck
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 3, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 3, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 52d4d1d (52d4d1df7105108f7e38aa4b41b27c9ec43bfe8d)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (52d4d1d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

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

Instruction count

This 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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.8% [0.1%, 1.3%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary -3.1%)

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.4% [2.0%, 2.9%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -5.0% [-7.3%, -3.3%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary 7.5%)

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 7.5% [4.3%, 9.3%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 744.283s -> 744.711s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 372.30 MiB -> 372.24 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 4, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jun 4, 2025

@bors rollup

my changes can't really affect macro expansion or ast stuff, so must be noise

@wesleywiser
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 4, 2025

📌 Commit 82ed50c has been approved by wesleywiser

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 Jun 4, 2025
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2025
Merged
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of #142033 - matthiaskrgr:rollup-99lvg0j, r=matthiaskrgr
81a964c 
Rollup of 11 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #141890 (Add link to correct documentation in htmldocck.py)
 - #141932 (Fix for async drop inside async gen fn)
 - #141960 (Use non-2015 edition paths in tests that do not test for their resolution)
 - #141968 (Run wfcheck in one big loop instead of per module)
 - #141969 (Triagebot: Remove `assign.users_on_vacation`)
 - #141985 (Ensure query keys are printed with reduced queries)
 - #141999 (Visit the ident in `PreciseCapturingNonLifetimeArg`.)
 - #142005 (Change `tag_field` to `FieldIdx` in `Variants::Multiple`)
 - #142017 (Fix incorrect use of "recommend" over "recommended")
 - #142024 (Don't refer to 'this tail expression' in expansion.)
 - #142025 (Don't refer to 'local binding' in extern macro.)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 8492c14 into rust-lang:master Jun 5, 2025
10 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.89.0 milestone Jun 5, 2025
rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2025
@rust-timer
Unrolled build for #141968
8291611 
Rollup merge of #141968 - oli-obk:wfck-everything-at-once, r=wesleywiser

Run wfcheck in one big loop instead of per module

Maybe we can merge this big loop in the future with the `par_hir_body_owners` call below and run typeck only on items that didn't fail wfcheck. For now let's just see if perf likes it, as it by itself should be beneficial to parallel rustc
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2025
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@wesleywiser wesleywiser wesleywiser approved these changes

Assignees

@wesleywiser wesleywiser

Labels
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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.89.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@oli-obk @rustbot @rust-timer @wesleywiser @bors