Outline constant messages from panicking macros

[hanna-kruppe]

View all comments

This emits (very slightly) less code per call site because it's passing one less argument (the implicit caller location is still passed).

Inspired by #163657

[hanna-kruppe]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: caa37fb (caa37fb206c657fa2ce3b0adc2fe67084eaee0a8)
Base parent: f48b3e6 (f48b3e61eeece268609bd920fcca1ded047db7ca)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (caa37fb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking 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 count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.1%, 0.1%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (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)	4.1%	[2.1%, 6.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-4.1%, -4.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.8%)

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)	6.7%	[6.7%, 6.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.4%, -1.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.4%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	11

Bootstrap: 490.122s -> 490.205s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 408.65 MiB -> 408.94 MiB (0.07%)

[panstromek]

btw. I was wondering whether we should maybe do this automatically. Either change the panic macros to output a argument-less function definition and a call, or do the equivalent in some mir opt.

[edit] oh.. lol, that's what you did 😆 I should have looked at the code before commenting

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: libs
• libs expanded to 12 candidates
• Random selection from JohnTitor, Mark-Simulacrum, clarfonthey

[hanna-kruppe]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a6a14fb (a6a14fb59886aab396ff4e72ed178520f14a5f61)
Base parent: 5ec56e3 (5ec56e3902656f2460259fc3ac0f6e2255f94417)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a6a14fb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.1%]	37
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, 0.2%]	8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.7%, secondary 0.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[1.5%, 5.0%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-3.1%, -2.0%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-4.3%, -2.0%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-3.1%, 1.5%]	6

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.8%)

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)	4.8%	[4.8%, 4.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.5%)

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%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	61
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-5.0%, -0.0%]	62
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	61

Bootstrap: 487.044s -> 496.553s (1.95%)
Artifact size: 406.45 MiB -> 406.46 MiB (0.00%)

[hanna-kruppe]

That can’t be right…

[panstromek]

Yes, this looks like #t-compiler/performance > Suspiciously positive results (noise in get_module_children) again