Skip to content

Conversation

@paolobarbolini
Copy link
Contributor

@paolobarbolini paolobarbolini commented Dec 6, 2025

Implements the idea in #148604 (comment).
Enhancement to #149694.

core::array::IntoIter::next_chunk currently doesn't generate great code, so this may bloat the binary size a bit.

Could we get a perf run?

@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 6, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 6, 2025

r? @joboet

rustbot has assigned @joboet.
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

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-2 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
fmt: checked 6590 files
tidy check
tidy [rustdoc_json (src)]: `rustdoc-json-types` modified, checking format version
tidy: Skipping binary file check, read-only filesystem
tidy [style (library)]: /checkout/library/alloc/src/string.rs:2236: TODO is used for tasks that should be done before merging a PR; If you want to leave a message in the codebase use FIXME
tidy [style (library)]: /checkout/library/alloc/src/string.rs:2238: TODO is used for tasks that should be done before merging a PR; If you want to leave a message in the codebase use FIXME
tidy [style (library)]: FAIL
tidy: The following check failed: style (library)
Command `/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools-bin/rust-tidy /checkout /checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0/bin/cargo /checkout/obj/build 4 yarn` failed with exit code 1
Created at: src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/tool.rs:1612:23
Executed at: src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/test.rs:1314:29

Command has failed. Rerun with -v to see more details.
Bootstrap failed while executing `--stage 2 test --skip tests --skip coverage-map --skip coverage-run --skip library --skip tidyselftest`
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:50
  local time: Sat Dec  6 09:12:47 UTC 2025
  network time: Sat, 06 Dec 2025 09:12:47 GMT
##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

@Urgau
Copy link
Member

Urgau commented Dec 6, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2025
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 6, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Dec 6, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3f3acdf (3f3acdfbe44242af2a9a5419227d7c20c118425e, parent: fbab541a7ad1c22fc51783d03c7d75fa577f5633)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (3f3acdf): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.1%, 0.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.4% [-1.3%, -0.1%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.1% [-1.1%, -1.1%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.4%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.1% [0.8%, 1.7%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.7% [-6.4%, -0.9%] 11
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary -3.2%, secondary 1.4%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.7% [2.1%, 6.6%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.2% [-3.2%, -3.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-6.5% [-6.8%, -6.2%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.2% [-3.2%, -3.2%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, 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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.1% [-1.1%, -0.0%] 30
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.0%] 23
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.1% [-1.1%, -0.0%] 30

Bootstrap: 471.701s -> 471.964s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 388.90 MiB -> 388.53 MiB (-0.09%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Dec 6, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

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

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants