Remove new allocations from imported_source_files#99677
Remove new allocations from imported_source_files#99677bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
imported_source_files#99677Conversation
|
r? @wesleywiser (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
|
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
|
⌛ Trying commit f1063c0 with merge 5e5328706d3f8b491737daaf05f020e9fce2cc27... |
|
r=me on the changes presuming perf looks good |
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
|
Queued 5e5328706d3f8b491737daaf05f020e9fce2cc27 with parent b4151a4, future comparison URL. |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (5e5328706d3f8b491737daaf05f020e9fce2cc27): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. 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 Footnotes |
|
Ok the change seems to have resolved the performance regression (how many times is that function called to cause 3 allocations to have such impact?). @bors r=Mark-Simulacrum rollup=never |
Just did a quick experiment, while compiling the |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (96b9bb4): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression Footnotes |
#97786 introduced a large performance regression. After some local investigation it turns out the allocations performed by my change were the cause of the perf regression. This PR refactors my change to remove those allocations.