Skip to content

Remove manual WF hack #140557

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2025
Merged

Remove manual WF hack #140557

merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2025

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors commented May 1, 2025

We do not need this hack anymore since we fixed the candidate selection problems with Sized bounds. We prefer built-in sized bounds now since #138176, which fixes the only regression this hack was intended to fix.

While this theoretically is broken for some code, for example, when there a param-env bound that shadows an impl or built-in trait, we don't see it in practice and IMO it's not worth the burden of having to maintain this wart in compare_method_predicate_entailment.

The code that regresses is, for example:

trait Bar<'a> {}

trait Foo<'a, T> {
    fn method(&self)
    where
        Self: Bar<'a>;
}

struct W<'a, T>(&'a T)
where
    Self: Bar<'a>;

impl<'a, 'b, T> Bar<'a> for W<'b, T> {}

impl<'a, 'b, T> Foo<'a, T> for W<'b, T> {
    fn method(&self) {}
}

Specifically, I don't believe this is really going to be encountered in practice. For this to fail, there must be a where clause in the trait method that would shadow an impl or built-in (non-Sized) candidate in the trait, and this shadowing would need to be encountered when solving a nested WF goal from the impl self type.

See #108544 for the original regression. Crater run is clean!

r? lcnr

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try

@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. labels May 1, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 1, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 1, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 1b99dca with merge fc545c6...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 1, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fc545c6 (fc545c6b951a304df08b327c158f92678582f435)

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 1, 2025

@craterbot check

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

👌 Experiment pr-140557 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build fc545c6
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot craterbot added S-waiting-on-crater Status: Waiting on a crater run to be completed. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 1, 2025
@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🚧 Experiment pr-140557 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🚨 Report generation of pr-140557 failed: timed out waiting for connection
🛠️ If the error is fixed use the retry-report command.

🆘 Can someone from the infra team check in on this? @rust-lang/infra
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 4, 2025

@craterbot retry-report

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🛠️ Generation of the report for pr-140557 queued again.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🚨 Report generation of pr-140557 failed: timed out waiting for connection
🛠️ If the error is fixed use the retry-report command.

🆘 Can someone from the infra team check in on this? @rust-lang/infra
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@craterbot retry-report

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🛠️ Generation of the report for pr-140557 queued again.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🚨 Report generation of pr-140557 failed: timed out waiting for connection
🛠️ If the error is fixed use the retry-report command.

🆘 Can someone from the infra team check in on this? @rust-lang/infra
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@craterbot retry-report

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🛠️ Generation of the report for pr-140557 queued again.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🎉 Experiment pr-140557 is completed!
📊 4 regressed and 5 fixed (624228 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the denylist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot craterbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-crater Status: Waiting on a crater run to be completed. labels May 5, 2025
@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

👌 Experiment pr-140557-1 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build fc545c6
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot craterbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 5, 2025
@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🚧 Experiment pr-140557-1 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot craterbot added the S-waiting-on-crater Status: Waiting on a crater run to be completed. label May 5, 2025
@craterbot
Copy link
Collaborator

🎉 Experiment pr-140557-1 is completed!
📊 0 regressed and 0 fixed (2599 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the denylist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot craterbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-crater Status: Waiting on a crater run to be completed. labels May 5, 2025
@compiler-errors compiler-errors marked this pull request as ready for review May 5, 2025 18:23
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@rfcbot fcp merge

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented May 5, 2025

Team member @compiler-errors has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. labels May 5, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 5, 2025

I am in favor of reverting this hack and we can easily revert it if we encounter a new regression. I think maintaining such warts long time is bound to cause issues at some point.

@rfcbot reviewed

Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yay hack gone

@rfcbot rfcbot added final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. labels May 15, 2025
@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented May 15, 2025

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 15, 2025

@bors r+ rollup=

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 15, 2025

📌 Commit df47958 has been approved by lcnr

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 May 15, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented May 15, 2025

@bors r+ rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 15, 2025

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 15, 2025

📌 Commit df47958 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 16, 2025

⌛ Testing commit df47958 with merge 7e19eef...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 16, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 7e19eef to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 16, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 7e19eef into rust-lang:master May 16, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.89.0 milestone May 16, 2025
Copy link

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 6d1875f (parent) -> 7e19eef (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 7e19eef048ba58c28c70afbf5f95da4829c15796 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. dist-apple-various: 6099.5s -> 7828.3s (28.3%)
  2. x86_64-apple-1: 8788.4s -> 7502.3s (-14.6%)
  3. x86_64-apple-2: 4323.2s -> 4845.9s (12.1%)
  4. dist-aarch64-apple: 5459.5s -> 6107.6s (11.9%)
  5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3: 7086.2s -> 6579.5s (-7.1%)
  6. aarch64-apple: 4390.3s -> 4086.0s (-6.9%)
  7. x86_64-gnu-debug: 5891.1s -> 6199.7s (5.2%)
  8. x86_64-msvc-ext2: 5729.6s -> 6022.1s (5.1%)
  9. dist-x86_64-apple: 9167.5s -> 8704.7s (-5.0%)
  10. dist-x86_64-freebsd: 4873.6s -> 5091.1s (4.5%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (7e19eef): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)
0.3% [0.1%, 0.6%] 34
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.2% [0.1%, 0.2%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.1%, 0.6%] 34

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -5.6%, secondary -1.7%)

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)
2.2% [2.2%, 2.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-5.6% [-5.6%, -5.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.7% [-4.8%, -1.5%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) -5.6% [-5.6%, -5.6%] 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: 772.375s -> 772.011s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 365.48 MiB -> 365.45 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label May 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-types Relevant to the types team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants