Rollup of 4 pull requests - #162009
Merged
Merged
Conversation
- CoverageInfoHi => CoverageEarlyInfo - FunctionCoverageInfo => CoverageMirInfo - CoverageIdsInfo => CoverageCodegenInfo
…ethercote Remove unneeded clone in macro deriving Found this while looking at the parser and macro expansion. Note that `newitem` is already an owned `Box<Item>`, so there is no need to clone it. I found a few other places where we clone unnecessarily before dropping a value, but they were all in diagnostics code and the clone was very cheap, so it isn't IMO worth the churn. None of them were detected by the `redundant_clone` Clippy lint, which is a shame - it should be more powerful! r? nnethercote
coverage: Rename the three main coverage-info structs This PR renames the three main structures used to carry per-function coverage info through different stages of compilation: ```text - CoverageInfoHi => CoverageEarlyInfo // collected early, at the THIR/MIR boundary during MIR building - FunctionCoverageInfo => CoverageMirInfo // collected during the main MIR instrumentation pass - CoverageIdsInfo => CoverageCodegenInfo // collected during codegen, after MIR opts ``` The new names should hopefully help to keep the three structs distinct, while also avoiding the historical inconsistency of the previous names. The renaming also resolves an old TODO of mine about `coverage_ids_info` no longer making sense as a name. There should be no change to compiler behaviour.
Rerun `tests/debuginfo` tests if repr data has changed Resolves rust-lang#161138 This also includes the necessary checking for GDB's data even though none exists atm (rust-lang#160377 will contain the first set). The extra handling doesn't hurt anything since we have to account for all the other tests that don't have repr data anyway. In a followup, I can rename the `lldb_input` directory to something else (see: rust-lang#160137 (comment)). Doing so requires me to touch a bunch of other places where the name is used, so it should probably be it's own PR. Making sure the tests rerun when the data changes is higher priority though atm. r? @jieyouxu , @Kobzol cc @Mark-Simulacrum
…r=JonathanBrouwer update target-cpus test Fixes rust-lang#133919
rustbot
added
A-compiletest
Member
Author
|
@bors r+ p=5 |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rust-bors
Bot
added
merged-by-bors
Contributor
This was referenced Aug 30, 2026
This was referenced Aug 30, 2026
Contributor
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 93635a5 (parent) -> 2e071b2 (this PR) Test differencesShow 148 test diffs148 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy. Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 2e071b28ef7e8a066b49a179e1da753c53500c62 --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
Collaborator
|
Finished benchmarking commit (2e071b2): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 1.8%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 485.241s -> 475.013s (-2.11%) |
Contributor
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
parent commit: 93635a5d54 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
Member
Author
|
Caused by #162004 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
tests/debuginfotests if repr data has changed #161967 (Reruntests/debuginfotests if repr data has changed)r? @ghost
Create a similar rollup