Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
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

Add some track_caller info to precondition panics #129658

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Add some track_caller info to precondition panics #129658

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+139 −114

Conversation

saethlin
Copy link
Member

r? @ghost

Thought of this while looking at #129642 (comment)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. 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. labels Aug 27, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 27, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Aug 27, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 18e2a95 with merge 7798f9b...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129658 - saethlin:spare-a-crumb, r=<try>
7798f9b 
Add some track_caller info to precondition panics

r? `@ghost`

Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)
Skgland
Skgland reviewed Aug 27, 2024
View reviewed changes
library/core/src/panicking.rs
@@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ panic_const! {

/// Like `panic`, but without unwinding and track_caller to reduce the impact on codesize on the caller.

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I was involved in the discussion on the PR that added this comment in the first place :)
#102732

I created this PR in part to evaluate whether the code size concerns are ill-founded. I suspect they are.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Aug 27, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7798f9b (7798f9b35d0cd727f26631c015620e3dfe62e1f6)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (7798f9b): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no 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.

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

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.7%)

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.7% [-3.1%, -2.3%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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)		 0.1% [0.0%, 0.6%] 47
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.1% [0.0%, 0.4%] 35
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [0.0%, 0.6%] 47

Bootstrap: 749.925s -> 752.783s (0.38%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.79 MiB (0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 27, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

That looks possibly acceptable. Let's just see how bad this becomes?

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 27, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Aug 27, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 197c7b3 with merge 0e77a71...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129658 - saethlin:spare-a-crumb, r=<try>
0e77a71 
Add some track_caller info to precondition panics

r? `@ghost`

Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Aug 27, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0e77a71 (0e77a71199b6b2f7fac064cdf0b55e84d7ccca61)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (0e77a71): 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)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.3% [-0.3%, -0.3%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.1%)

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)		 0.3% [0.0%, 1.4%] 65
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.1% [0.0%, 0.5%] 35
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.0%, 1.4%] 65

Bootstrap: 749.925s -> 751.312s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.81 MiB (0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Aug 27, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (026dd26): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)		 0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 4.2% [4.2%, 4.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.2%, 0.4%] 3

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.3%)

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)		 0.3% [0.0%, 1.2%] 65
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.3% [0.0%, 0.6%] 21
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.0%, 1.2%] 65

Bootstrap: 750.76s -> 748.914s (-0.25%)
Artifact size: 338.30 MiB -> 338.29 MiB (-0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 4, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author
saethlin commented Sep 4, 2024

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 4, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Sep 4, 2024

⌛ Trying commit d0c6fc5 with merge a67bafe...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129658 - saethlin:spare-a-crumb, r=<try>
a67bafe 
Add some track_caller info to precondition panics

r? `@ghost`

Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Sep 5, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a67bafe (a67bafec4b2e81e12112d77be5d3aab1628be1b5)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (a67bafe): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no 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.

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

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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)		 0.1% [0.0%, 0.5%] 42
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.1% [0.0%, 0.4%] 22
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.1% [0.0%, 0.5%] 42

Bootstrap: 751.188s -> 752.636s (0.19%)
Artifact size: 340.71 MiB -> 340.64 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. perf-regression Performance regression. labels Sep 5, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 20, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#129658 - saethlin:spare-a-crumb, r=<try>
bd61639 
Add some track_caller info to precondition panics

r? `@ghost`

Thought of this while looking at rust-lang#129642 (comment)
@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Sep 20, 2024

⌛ Trying commit b046470 with merge bd61639...

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job x86_64-gnu-tools failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) 
tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs (revision `definition`) ... FAILED
tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs (revision `both`) ... FAILED

FAILED TEST: tests/fail/intrinsics/uninit_uninhabited_type.rs
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail/intrinsics" "tests/fail/intrinsics/uninit_uninhabited_type.rs" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/intrinsics/uninit_uninhabited_type.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/intrinsics/uninit_uninhabited_type.stderr
+++ <stderr output>
+++ <stderr output>
-thread 'main' panicked at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC:
+thread 'main' panicked at tests/fail/intrinsics/uninit_uninhabited_type.rs:LL:CC:
 aborted execution: attempted to instantiate uninhabited type `!`
 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
... 12 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `main`
   --> tests/fail/intrinsics/uninit_uninhabited_type.rs:LL:CC
... 6 lines skipped ...
... 6 lines skipped ...
 error: aborting due to 1 previous error
 



FAILED TEST: tests/fail/intrinsics/zero_fn_ptr.rs
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail/intrinsics" "tests/fail/intrinsics/zero_fn_ptr.rs" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/intrinsics/zero_fn_ptr.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/intrinsics/zero_fn_ptr.stderr
+++ <stderr output>
+++ <stderr output>
-thread 'main' panicked at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC:
+thread 'main' panicked at tests/fail/intrinsics/zero_fn_ptr.rs:LL:CC:
 aborted execution: attempted to zero-initialize type `fn()`, which is invalid
... 12 lines skipped ...
... 12 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `main`
   --> tests/fail/intrinsics/zero_fn_ptr.rs:LL:CC
... 6 lines skipped ...
... 6 lines skipped ...
 error: aborting due to 1 previous error
 



FAILED TEST: tests/fail/unwind-action-terminate.rs
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail" "tests/fail/unwind-action-terminate.rs" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/unwind-action-terminate.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/unwind-action-terminate.stderr
+++ <stderr output>
+++ <stderr output>
 thread 'main' panicked at tests/fail/unwind-action-terminate.rs:LL:CC:
 explicit panic
... 16 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
    = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_cannot_unwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `panic_abort`
... 14 lines skipped ...
... 14 lines skipped ...
 error: aborting due to 1 previous error
 



FAILED TEST: tests/fail/terminate-terminator.rs
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail" "tests/fail/terminate-terminator.rs" "-Zmir-opt-level=3" "-Zinline-mir-hint-threshold=1000" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/terminate-terminator.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/terminate-terminator.stderr
+++ <stderr output>
+++ <stderr output>
 warning: You have explicitly enabled MIR optimizations, overriding Miri's default which is to completely disable them. Any optimizations may hide UB that Miri would otherwise detect, and it is not necessarily possible to predict what kind of UB will be missed. If you are enabling optimizations to make Miri run faster, we advise using cfg(miri) to shrink your workload instead. The performance benefit of enabling MIR optimizations is usually marginal at best.
... 18 lines skipped ...
... 18 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
    = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_cannot_unwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `has_cleanup`
... 20 lines skipped ...
... 20 lines skipped ...
 error: aborting due to 1 previous error; 1 warning emitted
 



FAILED TEST: tests/fail/panic/double_panic.rs
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail/panic" "tests/fail/panic/double_panic.rs" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/panic/double_panic.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/panic/double_panic.stderr
+++ <stderr output>
+++ <stderr output>
 thread 'main' panicked at tests/fail/panic/double_panic.rs:LL:CC:
 first
... 18 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind_nobacktrace` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
    = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_in_cleanup` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `main`
... 10 lines skipped ...
... 10 lines skipped ...
 error: aborting due to 1 previous error
 



FAILED TEST: tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs (revision `definition`)
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail/function_calls" "tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs" "--cfg=definition" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.definition.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.definition.stderr
+++ <stderr output>
+++ <stderr output>
 thread 'main' panicked at tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs:LL:CC:
 explicit panic
... 16 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
    = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_cannot_unwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `nounwind`
... 14 lines skipped ...
... 14 lines skipped ...
 error: aborting due to 1 previous error
 



FAILED TEST: tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs (revision `both`)
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-GKR7B1" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "--sysroot=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/miri-sysroot" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/miri_ui/tests/fail/function_calls" "tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs" "--cfg=both" "--edition" "2021"
error: actual output differed from expected
error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.both.stderr` to the actual output
--- tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.both.stderr
 thread 'main' panicked at tests/fail/function_calls/exported_symbol_bad_unwind2.rs:LL:CC:
 explicit panic
... 16 lines skipped ...
... 16 lines skipped ...
    = note: inside `std::sys::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<{closure@std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{closure#0}}, !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
-   = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_nounwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
    = note: inside `core::panicking::panic_cannot_unwind` at RUSTLIB/core/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
 note: inside `nounwind`
... 14 lines skipped ...
---

Location:
   /cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f/ui_test-0.26.5/src/lib.rs:357

Backtrace omitted. Run with RUST_BACKTRACE=1 environment variable to display it.
Run with RUST_BACKTRACE=full to include source snippets.
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--test ui`
Caused by:
  process didn't exit successfully: `/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/release/deps/ui-2c011aad142892c6 --quiet` (exit status: 1)
  process didn't exit successfully: `/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/release/deps/ui-2c011aad142892c6 --quiet` (exit status: 1)
Command has failed. Rerun with -v to see more details.
  local time: Fri Sep 20 22:58:44 UTC 2024
  network time: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 22:58:44 GMT
##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.
Post job cleanup.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor
bors commented Sep 21, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bd61639 (bd61639776827fdd3a4facd53c2ad196dd6ac003)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (bd61639): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@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)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 1.1%)

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)		 2.3% [1.9%, 2.7%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (primary -2.8%, secondary -4.9%)

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)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -4.9% [-6.9%, -2.8%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.8% [-2.8%, -2.8%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.3%)

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)		 0.3% [0.1%, 1.2%] 65
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.3% [0.0%, 0.7%] 19
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.1%, 1.2%] 65

Bootstrap: 768.593s -> 769.844s (0.16%)
Artifact size: 341.36 MiB -> 341.31 MiB (-0.02%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 21, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Skgland Skgland Skgland left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
S-experimental Status: Ongoing experiment that does not require reviewing and won't be merged in its current state. 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.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@saethlin @rust-log-analyzer @rust-timer @bors @Skgland @rustbot @Dylan-DPC