Skip to content

Master bootstrap update #135268

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
bors merged 5 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025
Merged

Master bootstrap update #135268

bors merged 5 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member

@pietroalbini pietroalbini commented Jan 8, 2025

Part of the release process.

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) 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-release Relevant to the release subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 8, 2025
@rustbot

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@rustbot

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

Mark-Simulacrum commented Jan 8, 2025

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 8, 2025

📌 Commit d894ce8 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

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 Jan 8, 2025
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

matthiaskrgr commented Jan 9, 2025

@bors rollup=iffy

@GrigorenkoPV GrigorenkoPV mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2025
Merged
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 9, 2025

⌛ Testing commit d894ce8 with merge 251206c...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 9, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 251206c to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 9, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 251206c into rust-lang:master Jan 9, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.86.0 milestone Jan 9, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-timer commented Jan 9, 2025

Finished benchmarking commit (251206c): 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)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 3

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -2.0%, secondary 2.2%)

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.2% [2.2%, 2.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 760.26s -> 763.48s (0.42%)
Artifact size: 325.79 MiB -> 325.77 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jan 9, 2025
@pietroalbini pietroalbini deleted the pa-bump-stage0 branch January 9, 2025 21:33
@rylev
Copy link
Member

rylev commented Jan 14, 2025

Marking as triaged since I imagine this is just noise, and even if it isn't, it's not worth investigating.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jan 14, 2025
tautschnig added a commit to tautschnig/verify-rust-std that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2025
@tautschnig