Skip to content
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

Remove an unnecessary cast #124700

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 4, 2024
Merged

Remove an unnecessary cast #124700

merged 1 commit into from
May 4, 2024

Conversation

scottmcm
Copy link
Member

@scottmcm scottmcm commented May 4, 2024

Very minor thing, obviously, but I randomly saw this unnecessary cast showing up in the UbChecks, so might as well get rid of it.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 4, 2024

r? @Nilstrieb

rustbot has assigned @Nilstrieb.
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

@rustbot

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 4, 2024
@rustbot

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@scottmcm
Remove an unnecessary cast
b95d1b7 
Very minor thing, obviously, but I randomly saw this unnecessary cast showing up in the UbChecks, so might as well get rid of it.
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

scottmcm commented May 4, 2024

Oops, added too much during a rebase. Fixed -- definitely not trying to change cargo here.

@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2024

📌 Commit b95d1b7 has been approved by Nilstrieb

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 4, 2024
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request May 4, 2024
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#124703 - matthiaskrgr:rollup-2lljptd, r=matth…
d7ea278 
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#123356 (Reduce code size of `thread::set_current`)
 - rust-lang#124159 (Move thread parking to `sys::sync`)
 - rust-lang#124293 (Let miri and const eval execute intrinsics' fallback bodies)
 - rust-lang#124677 (Set non-leaf frame pointers on Fuchsia targets)
 - rust-lang#124692 (We do not coerce `&mut &mut T -> *mut mut T`)
 - rust-lang#124698 (Rewrite `rustdoc-determinism` test in Rust)
 - rust-lang#124700 (Remove an unnecessary cast)
 - rust-lang#124701 (Docs: suggest `uN::checked_sub` instead of check-then-unchecked)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 7705671 into rust-lang:master May 4, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 4, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
@rust-timer
Unrolled build for rust-lang#124700
f19ee87 
Rollup merge of rust-lang#124700 - scottmcm:unneeded_cast, r=Nilstrieb

Remove an unnecessary cast

Very minor thing, obviously, but I randomly saw this unnecessary cast showing up in the UbChecks, so might as well get rid of it.
@scottmcm scottmcm deleted the unneeded_cast branch May 4, 2024 19:47
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

scottmcm commented May 4, 2024 •
edited
Loading

It's probably not this, but I'm curious
@rust-timer build f19ee87

cc #124703 (comment)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (f19ee87): 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)		 0.6% [0.6%, 0.7%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.0% [-1.0%, -1.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.6%, 0.7%] 3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)		 6.7% [0.4%, 12.6%] 5
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 6.7% [0.4%, 12.6%] 5

Cycles

Results

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)		 1.1% [1.0%, 1.1%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.3% [-2.7%, -2.0%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.1% [1.0%, 1.1%] 2

Binary size

Results

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)		 0.4% [0.0%, 1.5%] 62
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.1% [0.1%, 0.2%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.5% [-0.6%, -0.2%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [-0.0%, 1.5%] 65

Bootstrap: 676.427s -> 676.666s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 315.91 MiB -> 315.87 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label May 4, 2024
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member Author

scottmcm commented May 4, 2024

My guess is inlining. If making usize::count_ones simpler makes the compiler slower, I don't think that's something that should be fixed by making the library code worse.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@Noratrieb Noratrieb

Labels
perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.80.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@scottmcm @rustbot @Noratrieb @bors @rust-timer