Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset. - #159195
Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset.#159195cjgillot wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (10b8371): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action neededBenchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up. @rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression Instruction countThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)Results (secondary 1.9%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (secondary 2.0%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeResults (secondary -0.4%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Bootstrap: 489.838s -> 490.392s (0.11%) |
|
@bors r+ rollup=iffy (look at the mir-opt diff, this is going to be conflict-prone) |
…aethlin Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset. Follow-up to rust-lang#157491 I'm not totally convinced this is worth the effort. The generated pattern is trivially cleaned-up by SimplifyCfg, so we should not need to bother. r? @saethlin since you reviewed the earlier PR
…aethlin Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset. Follow-up to rust-lang#157491 I'm not totally convinced this is worth the effort. The generated pattern is trivially cleaned-up by SimplifyCfg, so we should not need to bother. r? @saethlin since you reviewed the earlier PR
|
This may be the cause of #160308. @bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-llvm-21 |
|
This pull request was unapproved. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset. try-job: x86_64-gnu-llvm-21
|
💔 Test for a605958 failed: CI. Failed job:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
6f2cdf7 to
fca740d
Compare
|
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. |
|
@bors r=saethlin |
…aethlin Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset. Follow-up to rust-lang#157491 I'm not totally convinced this is worth the effort. The generated pattern is trivially cleaned-up by SimplifyCfg, so we should not need to bother. r? @saethlin since you reviewed the earlier PR
|
⌛ Testing commit fca740d with merge e878faa... Workflow: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/30764145913 |
…aethlin Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset. Follow-up to rust-lang#157491 I'm not totally convinced this is worth the effort. The generated pattern is trivially cleaned-up by SimplifyCfg, so we should not need to bother. r? @saethlin since you reviewed the earlier PR
|
@bors yield |
|
Auto build was cancelled. Cancelled workflows: The next pull request likely to be tested is #160400. |
…uwer Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #159195 (Drop elaboration: Only create a reset block if there are flags to reset.) - #160318 (Bump thorin-dwp (0.10), gimli (0.33), and object (0.38.1)) - #159756 (bootstrap: Move some shared source files into a new `shim_utils` crate) - #160385 (Assign ownership for Renovate configuration file) - #160397 (Box::new: fix safety comment)
View all comments
Follow-up to #157491
I'm not totally convinced this is worth the effort. The generated pattern is trivially cleaned-up by SimplifyCfg, so we should not need to bother.
r? @saethlin since you reviewed the earlier PR