Skip to content
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

add codegen test for the move before passing to nocapture, by shared-ref arg #115050

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 28, 2023

Conversation

khei4
Copy link
Contributor

@khei4 khei4 commented Aug 21, 2023

This PR adds codegen test for #107436 (comment) (It seems like this works from llvm-16?)

Fixes #107436

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 21, 2023

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

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

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 21, 2023
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@khei4 khei4 force-pushed the khei4/codegen-move-before-nocapture branch from 4b5a10b to effbfaa Compare August 21, 2023 10:51
@khei4
Copy link
Contributor Author

khei4 commented Aug 25, 2023

r? @nikic

@rustbot rustbot assigned nikic and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Aug 25, 2023
@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Aug 25, 2023

How did you determine that this works with LLVM 16 already?

@khei4
Copy link
Contributor Author

khei4 commented Aug 26, 2023

How did you determine that this works with LLVM 16 already?

@nikic Thank you! I'm sorry I misunderstood! llvm-16 can't work.
https://llvm.godbolt.org/z/4Wo3Yf3rq

remove trailing whitespace, add trailing newline

fix llvm version and function name
@khei4 khei4 force-pushed the khei4/codegen-move-before-nocapture branch from effbfaa to d88c80f Compare August 26, 2023 09:15
@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Aug 28, 2023

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 28, 2023

📌 Commit d88c80f has been approved by nikic

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 Aug 28, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 28, 2023

⌛ Testing commit d88c80f with merge 9f48a85...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 28, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikic
Pushing 9f48a85 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 28, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 9f48a85 into rust-lang:master Aug 28, 2023
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.74.0 milestone Aug 28, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (9f48a85): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 629.54s -> 630.477s (0.15%)
Artifact size: 316.21 MiB -> 316.26 MiB (0.02%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Missed optimization opportunity when trivially moving tuple of slices
7 participants