Skip to content

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

xizheyin and others added 8 commits April 8, 2025 15:11
The documentation is talking about other way using only raw pointers, but the example was use `std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut` which also create a reference. `std::ptr::slice_from_raw_parts_mut` should be used instead, and it also highlights the benefit of raw pointer manipulation compared to dereference, as the function doesn't need to be unsafe anymore.

Moreover, [`unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2024/unsafe-op-in-unsafe-fn.html) warning has been enabled since Edition 2024, so I've updated the examples to use unsafe blocks.
Includes the following changes:

* Require `target_has_atomic = "ptr"` for runtime feature detection

[1]: rust-lang/compiler-builtins#909
Stabilize precise capture syntax in style guide

Closes rust-lang#138527

r? `@jieyouxu`
…ss35

Fix backtrace for cygwin

Closes rust-lang#140304

Depends on:
- [x] rust-lang/backtrace-rs#704

This PR could not be merged until the above PR is merged. I'll update the submodule then.

EDIT: submodule updated.
fix typo in autorefs lint doc example

The documentation is talking about other way using only raw pointers, but the example was use `std::slice::from_raw_parts_mut` which also create a reference. `std::ptr::slice_from_raw_parts_mut` should be used instead, and it also highlights the benefit of raw pointer manipulation compared to dereference, as the function doesn't need to be unsafe anymore.

Moreover, [`unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2024/unsafe-op-in-unsafe-fn.html) warning has been enabled since Edition 2024, so I've updated the examples to use unsafe blocks.
Update `compiler-builtins` to 0.1.158

Includes the following changes:

* Require `target_has_atomic = "ptr"` for runtime feature detection [1]

[1]: rust-lang/compiler-builtins#909
@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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-style Relevant to the style team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels May 7, 2025
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ p=4 rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 7, 2025

📌 Commit aca12a8 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

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 7, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 7, 2025

⌛ Testing commit aca12a8 with merge db0e836...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented May 7, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing db0e836 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 7, 2025
@bors bors merged commit db0e836 into rust-lang:master May 7, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.88.0 milestone May 7, 2025
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the rollup-dlhbxsg branch May 7, 2025 12:39
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#139518 Stabilize precise capture syntax in style guide 7d18d73a1652a02a103e1df4b6c15d21e06fe149 (link)
#140398 Fix backtrace for cygwin 0780bfebd4b8fb126ad65ee72d98f9cf41a6c168 (link)
#140719 fix typo in autorefs lint doc example a97ac9108dc2b529f2771494d64bdcc0479934f0 (link)
#140724 Update compiler-builtins to 0.1.158 dd78c498dfe7dee32b4b302d3cddeb62f3c71d97 (link)

previous master: f76c7367c6

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 7, 2025

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 f76c736 (parent) -> db0e836 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard db0e836148accac8a22532e3596ac612b63c2d8e --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-aarch64-apple: 5291.5s -> 7024.6s (32.8%)
  2. x86_64-apple-2: 6119.1s -> 4662.4s (-23.8%)
  3. x86_64-apple-1: 8814.1s -> 7364.3s (-16.4%)
  4. dist-arm-linux: 4551.5s -> 5257.9s (15.5%)
  5. dist-x86_64-apple: 8120.9s -> 9051.9s (11.5%)
  6. x86_64-gnu-distcheck: 4846.2s -> 4386.0s (-9.5%)
  7. x86_64-gnu: 6131.1s -> 6550.5s (6.8%)
  8. dist-i686-msvc: 6882.4s -> 7323.7s (6.4%)
  9. i686-msvc-2: 7603.5s -> 7194.4s (-5.4%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-aux: 6163.5s -> 5881.5s (-4.6%)
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 (db0e836): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 3.1%)

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)
0.6% [0.4%, 0.8%] 7
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.1% [1.1%, 5.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.8% [-1.5%, -0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [-1.5%, 0.8%] 10

Cycles

Results (primary 0.0%)

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)
0.5% [0.4%, 0.6%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.5% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [-0.6%, 0.6%] 7

Binary size

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -0.8%)

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.3% [-0.8%, -0.1%] 21
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.8% [-1.2%, -0.2%] 41
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.3% [-0.8%, -0.1%] 21

Bootstrap: 768.928s -> 768.419s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 365.16 MiB -> 365.16 MiB (0.00%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-style Relevant to the style team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants