[perf] test MCP510

[lqd]

r? @ghost

[lqd]

Let's see if the bootstrapping cfgs are correctly set up.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 793c8e6 with merge 4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c (4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c)

[lqd]

Let's see if the bootstrapping cfgs are correctly set up.

$  cargo +4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c build -q && readelf -p .comment ./target/debug/helloworld

String dump of section '.comment':
  [     0]  GCC: (Ubuntu 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.1) 11.3.0
  [    2d]  Linker: LLD 16.0.5

Looks like yes?

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4cb98396e9dc17fbe9b0da2b1bd35d9b05fff30c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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

Warning ⚠: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

• rustc

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-32.7%	[-74.0%, -3.7%]	74
All ❌✅ (primary)	-34.1%	[-74.8%, -0.6%]	31

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)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	27.8%	[21.9%, 33.7%]	2

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-28.4%	[-64.8%, -3.3%]	73
All ❌✅ (primary)	-32.3%	[-65.9%, -1.4%]	28

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)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	61
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	20

Bootstrap: missing data

[lqd]

The data gathering is done so I'll close this for now, but may reopen to rerun crater on these new try artifacts.

[lqd]

Vanilla LLVM CI failing as expected 👌

[lqd]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3f4b4be with merge ea4f4e2...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ea4f4e2 (ea4f4e260c110043df782c3517206f94a737ebea)

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 57ca57e with merge fcad06f...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-aux failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fcad06f (fcad06fb2dcbd8918bb0bf0f2b36ce35382e8ac1)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fcad06f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-30.0%	[-72.0%, -0.5%]	32
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-26.4%	[-71.3%, -1.6%]	73
All ❌✅ (primary)	-29.1%	[-72.0%, 0.3%]	33

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)	7.0%	[1.3%, 23.4%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.4%	[-5.4%, -5.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	7.0%	[1.3%, 23.4%]	7

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-26.9%	[-62.5%, -0.6%]	31
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-24.9%	[-62.5%, -2.2%]	69
All ❌✅ (primary)	-26.9%	[-62.5%, -0.6%]	31

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)	2.1%	[0.6%, 4.3%]	28
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[0.5%, 5.3%]	74
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[-0.3%, 4.3%]	32

Bootstrap: 672.201s -> 661.733s (-1.56%)
Artifact size: 315.29 MiB -> 315.28 MiB (-0.00%)