Remove usages of Unique from RawVec

[maxdexh]

View all comments

See zulip.

Probably needs a perf run, because it touches code that might be very sensitive to build times and debug mode

r? libs

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for 993bb96 failed: CI, CI

[hanna-kruppe]

@bors try

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b67dca9 (b67dca92df005a4ebbe8c3b45e6cfe97925fff26)
Base parent: 1936d44 (1936d44457352da43b2d740672b940ebc715ac38)

[hanna-kruppe]

Nice cleanup, I'd say "r=me if perf looks good" but we should probably do some due diligence about debug visualizers. You mentioned on Zulip that you tested manually in gdb, I can try on Windows locally later.

r? me

[hanna-kruppe]

Oh, huh, guess that a bunch of old backcompat hacks made the gdb visualizer resilient to this change:

rust/src/etc/gdb_providers.py

Line 18 in 1936d44

return ptr if ptr.type.code == gdb.TYPE_CODE_PTR else ptr[ptr.type.fields()[0]]

But the natvis looks like it’ll break:

rust/src/etc/natvis/liballoc.natvis

Line 10 in 1936d44

<ValuePointer>($T1*)buf.inner.ptr.pointer.pointer</ValuePointer>

[hanna-kruppe]

@bors try jobs=test-aarch64-apple-1

[maxdexh]

I wonder why I can't run lldb tests locally on linux...

[maxdexh]

I think that's from the previous job

edit: it's actually from the one before even that 👀

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: f47ec7d (f47ec7d2cb32b982a7afec88c3be46618f4c49b8)
Base parent: feaadee (feaadeeaca7db0594da854e7c8c07495341c7439)

[hanna-kruppe]

Sorry, I changed my mind about updating that comment in the LLDB providers after a closer look. r=me after

View changes since this review

[maxdexh]

oops, forgot that i had other changes in that file ^^

[hanna-kruppe]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 16337b6 has been approved by hanna-kruppe

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: hanna-kruppe
Duration: 2h 59m
Pushing 12c4d3f to main...

[github-actions]

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 fc7358c (parent) -> 12c4d3f (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 12c4d3f34dcb4715784d2fa0e8443853e0592194 --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

1. dist-x86_64-musl: 1h 28m -> 2h 13m (+51.0%)
2. dist-s390x-linux: 1h 5m -> 1h 34m (+44.0%)
3. test-i686-gnu-2: 1h 36m -> 1h (-37.7%)
4. test-x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3: 1h 22m -> 1h 51m (+35.3%)
5. test-x86_64-msvc-ext2: 1h 21m -> 1h 49m (+33.7%)
6. test-x86_64-msvc-ext1: 1h 50m -> 2h 26m (+31.8%)
7. dist-x86_64-msvc: 1h 55m -> 2h 30m (+30.5%)
8. test-x86_64-rust-for-linux: 56m 22s -> 39m 15s (-30.4%)
9. test-pr-check-2: 30m 59s -> 39m 38s (+27.9%)
10. dist-ohos-armv7: 1h 14m -> 53m 43s (-27.8%)

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]

Finished benchmarking commit (12c4d3f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

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)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.5%]	9

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 4.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.6%	[1.6%, 8.0%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-3.9%, -1.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-3.9%, 8.0%]	8

Cycles

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary -4.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-6.1%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.4%]	44
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	49
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, -0.0%]	19
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.4%, 0.4%]	63

Bootstrap: 500.549s -> 496.862s (-0.74%)
Artifact size: 408.70 MiB -> 408.74 MiB (0.01%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Regression in coercions looks like noise. Cargo regression looks real, but
limited to one incremental scenario; doesn't seem worth followup.