Stop emitting UbChecks on every Vec→Slice by scottmcm · Pull Request #150265 · rust-lang/rust

scottmcm · 2025-12-22T12:33:17Z

Spotted this in #148766's test changes. It doesn't seem like this ubcheck would catch anything useful; let's see if skipping it helps perf. (After all, this is inside every [] on a vec, among other things.)

scottmcm · 2025-12-22T12:41:20Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Stop emitting UbChecks on every Vec→Slice

rust-bors · 2025-12-22T14:58:52Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d3405d7 (d3405d79c1b6f5617f04715f0b349c565c6a743d, parent: 000ccd651d6dfeab13f7703d92a5fd7a9ff7510f)

rust-timer · 2025-12-22T15:40:26Z

Finished benchmarking commit (d3405d7): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.4%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.0%, 2.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-6.0%, -0.1%]	28
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-2.2%, -0.1%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-6.0%, 2.4%]	32

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary 1.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.8%	[1.3%, 6.7%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[0.9%, 6.1%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.4%	[-7.2%, -3.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-2.6%, -1.5%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-7.2%, 6.7%]	8

Cycles

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -1.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.3%, 2.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.1%, 2.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.7%, -2.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-6.5%, -2.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-2.7%, 2.8%]	7

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 1.2%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.0%, 1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	64
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-3.6%, -0.0%]	20
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, 1.2%]	75

Bootstrap: 481.34s -> 483.129s (0.37%)
Artifact size: 390.37 MiB -> 390.63 MiB (0.07%)

rustbot · 2025-12-22T22:17:51Z

r? @ibraheemdev

rustbot has assigned @ibraheemdev.
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

scottmcm · 2025-12-22T22:19:22Z

Reconfirming after rebasing, but should be basically the same
@bors try @rust-timer queue

Stop emitting UbChecks on every Vec→Slice

scottmcm · 2025-12-22T22:21:03Z

library/core/src/slice/cmp.rs

-    fn not_equal(&self, other: &[B]) -> bool {
-        !self.equal(other)
-    }


Annot: nothing actually overrode this anywhere, so removed it in favour of the usual PartialEq::ne.

scottmcm · 2025-12-22T22:33:21Z

tests/mir-opt/jump_threading.chained_conditions.JumpThreading.panic-abort.diff

+          StorageLive(_38);
+          _36 = copy _29 as &[u8] (Transmute);
+          _38 = copy _28 as &[u8] (Transmute);
+          _7 = <[u8] as PartialEq>::eq(move _36, move _38) -> [return: bb19, unwind unreachable];


annot: note that we're still inlining the whole &String → &str → &u8 part (since it'll essentially disappear in LLVM), just stopping at <[_]>::eq which sharing at the MIR level is probably best.

rust-bors · 2025-12-23T00:41:17Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: fa07ba2 (fa07ba28fd0d71635c2fcc8ab0cb7944dd5fea85, parent: 04813e4de86a5e024e71756ef092637aa862c984)

rust-timer · 2025-12-23T01:22:03Z

Finished benchmarking commit (fa07ba2): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[0.3%, 2.6%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.0%, 2.5%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-6.0%, -0.2%]	26
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-2.0%, -0.1%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-6.0%, 2.6%]	31

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary 1.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.3%	[2.1%, 5.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[0.8%, 5.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.6%	[-7.7%, -2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-2.2%, -1.4%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-7.7%, 5.4%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -1.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.2%, 2.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.8%, -2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-6.9%, -1.4%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-2.8%, 2.2%]	3

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 1.2%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.0%, 1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	57
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-3.7%, -0.0%]	20
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.9%, 1.2%]	65

Bootstrap: 481.395s -> 479.879s (-0.31%)
Artifact size: 390.31 MiB -> 390.61 MiB (0.08%)

Spotted this in PR148766's test changes. It doesn't seem like this ubcheck would catch anything useful; let's see if skipping it helps perf.

rustbot · 2026-01-09T01:14:14Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

scottmcm · 2026-01-09T01:45:04Z

@rustbot reroll

jhpratt · 2026-01-09T06:10:27Z

@bors r+ rollup=never

rust-bors · 2026-01-09T06:10:31Z

📌 Commit c48df5d has been approved by jhpratt

It is now in the queue for this repository.

rust-bors · 2026-01-09T12:19:13Z

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: jhpratt
Pushing 85d0cdf to main...

github-actions · 2026-01-09T12:22:15Z

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 3fda0e4 (parent) -> 85d0cdf (this PR)

Test differences

Show 268 test diffs

268 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 85d0cdfe3489ff1a4b86daeddba6fcf82b47bd65 --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

pr-check-1: 1529.9s -> 1916.3s (+25.3%)
dist-apple-various: 4285.9s -> 3506.0s (-18.2%)
x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2711.7s -> 3191.3s (+17.7%)
x86_64-gnu-aux: 7576.7s -> 6612.3s (-12.7%)
x86_64-gnu-tools: 3314.0s -> 3720.5s (+12.3%)
x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3408.2s -> 3809.6s (+11.8%)
x86_64-gnu-miri: 4477.3s -> 4972.6s (+11.1%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-1: 4122.5s -> 4526.0s (+9.8%)
aarch64-gnu-debug: 3917.5s -> 4296.9s (+9.7%)
aarch64-apple: 9532.5s -> 10434.1s (+9.5%)

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 · 2026-01-09T13:01:33Z

Finished benchmarking commit (85d0cdf): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[0.1%, 2.6%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-5.8%, -0.1%]	25
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.4%, -0.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-5.8%, 2.6%]	28

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary 1.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.9%	[3.1%, 10.5%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.4%	[-7.4%, -0.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-7.4%, 10.5%]	7

Cycles

Results (primary -1.3%, secondary 1.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.9%, -2.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-2.9%, 2.6%]	4

Binary size

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

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 1.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.6%, -0.0%]	42
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.3%, -0.0%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.6%, 1.1%]	47

Bootstrap: 474.629s -> 473.885s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 390.98 MiB -> 390.84 MiB (-0.03%)

scottmcm · 2026-01-09T19:17:35Z

Wins clearly outweigh regressions here: check, debug, and doc are all green. opt is mixed -0.00% overall, with green for primary.

The one notable red is in syn-opt-full, which loses the gains it had in #148766, but I think overall this is still good. Might be interesting future work to see why it specifically got hit by this, though.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

…acrum Tweak `SlicePartialEq` to allow MIR-inlining the `compare_bytes` call #150265 disabled this because it was a net perf win, but let's see if we can tweak the structure of this to allow more inlining on this side while still not MIR-inlining the loop when it's not just `memcmp` and thus hopefully preserving the perf win. This should also allow MIR-inlining the length check, which was previously blocked, and thus might allow some obvious non-matches to optimize away as well.

…acrum Tweak `SlicePartialEq` to allow MIR-inlining the `compare_bytes` call rust-lang/rust#150265 disabled this because it was a net perf win, but let's see if we can tweak the structure of this to allow more inlining on this side while still not MIR-inlining the loop when it's not just `memcmp` and thus hopefully preserving the perf win. This should also allow MIR-inlining the length check, which was previously blocked, and thus might allow some obvious non-matches to optimize away as well.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2025

Auto merge of #150265 - scottmcm:vec-less-ubchecks, r=<try>

d3405d7

Stop emitting UbChecks on every Vec→Slice

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 22, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Dec 22, 2025

scottmcm force-pushed the vec-less-ubchecks branch from 9ca160d to fd8744f Compare December 22, 2025 22:08

scottmcm marked this pull request as ready for review December 22, 2025 22:17

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Dec 22, 2025

rustbot assigned ibraheemdev Dec 22, 2025

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Dec 22, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2025

Auto merge of #150265 - scottmcm:vec-less-ubchecks, r=<try>

fa07ba2

Stop emitting UbChecks on every Vec→Slice

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 22, 2025

scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 23, 2025

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Dec 24, 2025

scottmcm added 2 commits January 8, 2026 17:14

Stop emitting UbChecks on every Vec→Slice

5932078

Spotted this in PR148766's test changes. It doesn't seem like this ubcheck would catch anything useful; let's see if skipping it helps perf.

Move the rustc_no_mir_inline down a level

c48df5d

scottmcm force-pushed the vec-less-ubchecks branch from f9695bf to c48df5d Compare January 9, 2026 01:14

rustbot assigned jhpratt and unassigned ibraheemdev Jan 9, 2026

rust-bors bot 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 9, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors bot added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 9, 2026

rust-bors bot merged commit 85d0cdf into rust-lang:main Jan 9, 2026
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Jan 9, 2026

rust-bors bot mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026

Ignore #[doc(hidden)] items when computing trimmed paths for printing #148623

Merged

rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jan 9, 2026

scottmcm deleted the vec-less-ubchecks branch January 10, 2026 22:16

scottmcm mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2026

Tweak SlicePartialEq to allow MIR-inlining the compare_bytes call #150945

Merged

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2026

Toolchain upgrade to nightly-2026-01-30 flux-rs/flux#1345

Draft

Uh oh!

Conversation

scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2025 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Dec 22, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Dec 22, 2025

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

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Dec 22, 2025

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rust-bors bot commented Dec 23, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Dec 23, 2025

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

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

jhpratt commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Jan 9, 2026

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

Uh oh!

scottmcm commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

scottmcm commented Dec 22, 2025 •

edited by rustbot

Loading