Remove pointer comparison from slice equality#80209
Closed
erikdesjardins wants to merge 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
Closed
Remove pointer comparison from slice equality#80209erikdesjardins wants to merge 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
erikdesjardins wants to merge 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
Author
|
re #71735 (comment): I'm not sure how to test |
Member
|
Can we use an older version of hyper perhaps? |
Contributor
Author
|
Hmm, even circa May 2016, Using
So basically what you'd expect, reverting this makes string comparison marginally slower, but comparing the enum directly is ~the same. Although to be honest I'm not really happy with either my benchmark or what #33892 (comment) describes. Yes, they involve other code, but the only thing that changes is one critical line--basically a microbenchmark with extra steps. But I'm not sure what a good, noncontrived benchmark for this would be. |
Member
|
I think the codegen test here should probably be changed to test for something we expect to be present, rather than the lack of pointer equality - I am not sure what the IR with this PR looks like, but maybe we can assert that there is a single memcmp generated or something along those lines? I am fine with not trying to test hyper further; I still believe that the check here for pointer equality is unlikely to be impactful in practice (and we know it actively hurts some cases). @bors rollup=never though. |
Mark-Simulacrum
added
S-waiting-on-author
Contributor
Author
|
Changed the test, let me know if you have a better pattern. The old IR is: define zeroext i1 @is_zero_slice([4 x i8]* noalias readonly align 1 dereferenceable(4) %data) unnamed_addr #0 {
start:
%0 = icmp eq [4 x i8]* %data, getelementptr inbounds (<{ [4 x i8] }>, <{ [4 x i8] }>* @alloc2, i64 0, i32 0)
br i1 %0, label %"_ZN4core5array103_$LT$impl$u20$core..cmp..PartialEq$LT$$u5b$B$u3b$$u20$N$u5d$$GT$$u20$for$u20$$u5b$A$u3b$$u20$N$u5d$$GT$2eq17h702fd33f1073d678E.exit", label %bb9.i.i.i
bb9.i.i.i: ; preds = %start
%1 = getelementptr [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %data, i64 0, i64 0
%bcmp.i.i.i = tail call i32 @bcmp(i8* nonnull dereferenceable(4) %1, i8* nonnull dereferenceable(4) getelementptr inbounds (<{ [4 x i8] }>, <{ [4 x i8] }>* @alloc2, i64 0, i32 0, i64 0), i64 4) #2
%2 = icmp eq i32 %bcmp.i.i.i, 0
br label %"_ZN4core5array103_$LT$impl$u20$core..cmp..PartialEq$LT$$u5b$B$u3b$$u20$N$u5d$$GT$$u20$for$u20$$u5b$A$u3b$$u20$N$u5d$$GT$2eq17h702fd33f1073d678E.exit"
"_ZN4core5array103_$LT$impl$u20$core..cmp..PartialEq$LT$$u5b$B$u3b$$u20$N$u5d$$GT$$u20$for$u20$$u5b$A$u3b$$u20$N$u5d$$GT$2eq17h702fd33f1073d678E.exit": ; preds = %start, %bb9.i.i.i
%.0.i.i.i = phi i1 [ %2, %bb9.i.i.i ], [ true, %start ]
ret i1 %.0.i.i.i
}and the new IR is: define zeroext i1 @is_zero_slice([4 x i8]* noalias nocapture readonly align 1 dereferenceable(4) %data) unnamed_addr #0 {
start:
%0 = getelementptr [4 x i8], [4 x i8]* %data, i64 0, i64 0
%bcmp.i.i.i = tail call i32 @bcmp(i8* nonnull dereferenceable(4) %0, i8* nonnull dereferenceable(4) getelementptr inbounds (<{ [4 x i8] }>, <{ [4 x i8] }>* @alloc2, i64 0, i32 0, i64 0), i64 4) #2
%1 = icmp eq i32 %bcmp.i.i.i, 0
ret i1 %1
} |
Member
|
Yeah, I think the test is good. We can relax it if it turns out to be too sensitive. @bors r+ rollup=never squash |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit f29b6b8 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit f29b6b8 with merge 280255c7b4b67d559361bdd77d0f1f9c22b073b2... |
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Member
|
@bors r+ squash rollup=never |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit fae3ede has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit fae3ede with merge 93bac3bc6043448eb0b1de155765fbe6318656ec... |
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Member
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit fae3ede with merge 80cb6a64ae252b9aa8682fecabd621506106a115... |
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
Author
looks like another spurious failure |
Member
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 26, 2020
Remove pointer comparison from slice equality This resurrects rust-lang#71735. Fixes rust-lang#71602, helps with rust-lang#80140. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Contributor
|
Why was the PR not auto-closed? Is this a github bug or bors bug? |
Contributor
Author
|
It also removes authorship (733cb54), which is unusual; I would expect the resulting commit from this rebase command to have the same author as the first commit from the PR. |
Member
|
Yeah, those both seem like bors bugs. I will try to investigate later today. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This resurrects #71735.
Fixes #71602, helps with #80140.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum