Add some track_caller info to precondition panics #129658

saethlin · 2024-08-27T15:06:59Z

Thought of this while looking at #129642 (comment)

saethlin · 2024-08-27T16:30:13Z

bors · 2024-08-27T16:31:24Z

⌛ Trying commit 18e2a95 with merge 7798f9b...

Add some track_caller info to precondition panics r? `@ghost` Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)

saethlin · 2024-08-27T17:13:50Z

library/core/src/panicking.rs

@@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ panic_const! {

 /// Like `panic`, but without unwinding and track_caller to reduce the impact on codesize on the caller.


Yeah, I was involved in the discussion on the PR that added this comment in the first place :)
#102732

I created this PR in part to evaluate whether the code size concerns are ill-founded. I suspect they are.

bors · 2024-08-27T18:24:54Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7798f9b (7798f9b35d0cd727f26631c015620e3dfe62e1f6)

rust-timer · 2024-08-27T19:39:49Z

Finished benchmarking commit (7798f9b): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.7%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.1%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	47
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.4%]	35
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	47

Bootstrap: 749.925s -> 752.783s (0.38%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.79 MiB (0.02%)

saethlin · 2024-08-27T19:55:42Z

That looks possibly acceptable. Let's just see how bad this becomes?

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2024-08-27T19:56:53Z

⌛ Trying commit 197c7b3 with merge 0e77a71...

Add some track_caller info to precondition panics r? `@ghost` Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)

bors · 2024-08-27T21:50:53Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0e77a71 (0e77a71199b6b2f7fac064cdf0b55e84d7ccca61)

rust-timer · 2024-08-27T23:24:55Z

Finished benchmarking commit (0e77a71): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.1%)

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)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	65
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	35
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	65

Bootstrap: 749.925s -> 751.312s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.81 MiB (0.02%)

rust-timer · 2024-12-09T01:18:35Z

Finished benchmarking commit (ec378f3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

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)	2.2%	[0.2%, 7.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[0.2%, 7.1%]	5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.6%, secondary 3.0%)

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)	4.6%	[1.3%, 7.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.6%	[1.3%, 7.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 6.1%)

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)	6.1%	[3.0%, 9.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	6.1%	[3.0%, 9.2%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	67
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.7%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	67

Bootstrap: 767.853s -> 767.321s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 330.92 MiB -> 330.89 MiB (-0.01%)

bors · 2024-12-24T06:35:59Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #134716) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

… r=jieyouxu fix default-backtrace-ice test when running `tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs locally it gave this error: ``` failures: ---- [ui] tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs stdout ---- Saved the actual stderr to "/home/jyn/src/rust3/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice/default-backtrace-ice.stderr" diff of stderr: 7 8 aborting due to `-Z treat-err-as-bug=1` 9 stack backtrace: - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) + [... omitted 22 frames ...] + ``` (note that you must *not* use --bless; we previously did not have an error annotation to verify it was a full backtrace instead of a short backtrace.) this is a regression from setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 by default in rust-lang#134743. we need to turn off the new behavior when running UI tests so that they reflect our dist compiler. normally that's done by checking `sess.unstable_opts.ui_testing`, but this happens extremely early in the compiler before we've expanded arg files. do an extremely simple hack that doesn't work in all cases - we don't need it to work in all cases, only when running UI tests. cc rust-lang#129658 (comment) r? `@jieyouxu`

…=jieyouxu fix default-backtrace-ice test when running `tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs locally it gave this error: ``` failures: ---- [ui] tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs stdout ---- Saved the actual stderr to "/home/jyn/src/rust3/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice/default-backtrace-ice.stderr" diff of stderr: 7 8 aborting due to `-Z treat-err-as-bug=1` 9 stack backtrace: - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) + [... omitted 22 frames ...] + ``` (note that you must *not* use --bless; we previously did not have an error annotation to verify it was a full backtrace instead of a short backtrace.) this is a regression from setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 by default in rust-lang#134743. we need to turn off the new behavior when running UI tests so that they reflect our dist compiler. normally that's done by checking `sess.unstable_opts.ui_testing`, but this happens extremely early in the compiler before we've expanded arg files. do an extremely simple hack that doesn't work in all cases - we don't need it to work in all cases, only when running UI tests. cc rust-lang#129658 (comment) r? `@jieyouxu`

fix default-backtrace-ice test when running `tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs locally it gave this error: ``` failures: ---- [ui] tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs stdout ---- Saved the actual stderr to "/home/jyn/src/rust3/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice/default-backtrace-ice.stderr" diff of stderr: 7 8 aborting due to `-Z treat-err-as-bug=1` 9 stack backtrace: - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) + [... omitted 22 frames ...] + ``` (note that you must *not* use --bless; we previously did not have an error annotation to verify it was a full backtrace instead of a short backtrace.) this is a regression from setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 by default in rust-lang/rust#134743. we need to turn off the new behavior when running UI tests so that they reflect our dist compiler. normally that's done by checking `sess.unstable_opts.ui_testing`, but this happens extremely early in the compiler before we've expanded arg files. do an extremely simple hack that doesn't work in all cases - we don't need it to work in all cases, only when running UI tests. cc rust-lang/rust#129658 (comment) r? `@jieyouxu`

…=jieyouxu fix default-backtrace-ice test when running `tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs locally it gave this error: ``` failures: ---- [ui] tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs stdout ---- Saved the actual stderr to "/home/jyn/src/rust3/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice/default-backtrace-ice.stderr" diff of stderr: 7 8 aborting due to `-Z treat-err-as-bug=1` 9 stack backtrace: - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) - (end_short_backtrace) - (begin_short_backtrace) + [... omitted 22 frames ...] + ``` (note that you must *not* use --bless; we previously did not have an error annotation to verify it was a full backtrace instead of a short backtrace.) this is a regression from setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 by default in rust-lang#134743. we need to turn off the new behavior when running UI tests so that they reflect our dist compiler. normally that's done by checking `sess.unstable_opts.ui_testing`, but this happens extremely early in the compiler before we've expanded arg files. do an extremely simple hack that doesn't work in all cases - we don't need it to work in all cases, only when running UI tests. cc rust-lang#129658 (comment) r? `@jieyouxu`

saethlin · 2024-12-29T23:04:06Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Add some track_caller info to precondition panics r? `@ghost` Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)

bors · 2024-12-29T23:05:17Z

⌛ Trying commit 5721464 with merge 4c2b10c...

bors · 2024-12-30T00:52:55Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4c2b10c (4c2b10c659df5d0eb5747b5b5f8f5a9246cb4ff9)

rust-timer · 2024-12-30T02:07:55Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4c2b10c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

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)	7.2%	[7.2%, 7.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	7.2%	[7.2%, 7.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.4%, 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)	8.8%	[8.8%, 8.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[-2.0%, 8.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 9.4%, secondary -1.1%)

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)	9.4%	[9.4%, 9.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	9.4%	[9.4%, 9.4%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	66
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.7%]	40
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	66

Bootstrap: 761.047s -> 762.071s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 325.44 MiB -> 325.56 MiB (0.04%)

bors · 2025-01-03T01:13:39Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #122565) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

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. labels Aug 27, 2024