update to literal-escaper 0.0.4 for better API without `unreachable` and faster string parsing #140999

hkBst · 2025-05-14T10:24:03Z

This is the replacement for just the part of #138163 dealing with the changed API of unescape functionality, since that got moved into its own crate.

~~This uses an unpublished version of literal-escaper (rust-lang/literal-escaper#8).~~

r? @nnethercote

bors · 2025-05-16T13:06:45Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #141044) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

bors · 2025-05-29T16:09:52Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #141595) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

rustbot · 2025-06-13T12:35:51Z

rust-analyzer is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-analyzer instead.

cc @rust-lang/rust-analyzer

These commits modify the library/Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to library/Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

GuillaumeGomez · 2025-06-13T12:37:48Z

Let's run a perf check then.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2025-06-13T12:38:58Z

⌛ Trying commit c15bc48 with merge 74c9a54...

update to literal-escaper 0.0.4 for better API without `unreachable` and faster string parsing This is the replacement for just the part of #138163 dealing with the changed API of unescape functionality, since that got moved into its own crate. This is a draft, because it uses an unpublished version of literal-escaper (rust-lang/literal-escaper#8). To test, clone literal-escaper into a folder next to rustc, and test rustc normally. r? `@nnethercote`

lnicola · 2025-06-13T12:51:22Z

Please file the rust-analyzer parts upstream once it's released, if possible.

bors · 2025-06-13T13:04:18Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

nnethercote · 2025-06-23T02:32:43Z

library/Cargo.toml

 rustc-std-workspace-core = { path = 'rustc-std-workspace-core' }
 rustc-std-workspace-alloc = { path = 'rustc-std-workspace-alloc' }
 rustc-std-workspace-std = { path = 'rustc-std-workspace-std' }
 compiler_builtins = { path = "compiler-builtins/compiler-builtins" }
+
+# rustc-literal-escaper = { path = '../../literal-escaper/' }


This is unnecessary.

nnethercote · 2025-06-23T02:34:52Z

Just need to fix the patch lines.

…and faster string parsing

hkBst · 2025-06-23T06:37:01Z

Just need to fix the patch lines.

Done.

nnethercote · 2025-06-23T07:39:10Z

@bors r+

bors · 2025-06-23T07:39:12Z

📌 Commit 707a6f5 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

hkBst · 2025-06-24T11:09:05Z

@rustbot labels -A-tidy

workingjubilee · 2025-06-24T23:39:33Z

@bors r+ p=5

bors · 2025-06-24T23:39:35Z

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Rollup of 9 pull requests #142979

bors · 2025-06-24T23:39:36Z

📌 Commit 707a6f5 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

tgross35 · 2025-06-24T23:45:05Z

(just adding Nick back to the reviewers)

@bors r=nnethercote,workingjubilee

bors · 2025-06-24T23:45:08Z

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Rollup of 9 pull requests #142979

bors · 2025-06-24T23:45:09Z

📌 Commit 707a6f5 has been approved by nnethercote,workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

workingjubilee · 2025-06-24T23:47:21Z

( oh right, brainslip. )

workingjubilee · 2025-06-25T00:12:37Z

and to clarify I didn't review this, I just briefly imagined an entirely different way that r+ works.

@bors r=nnethercote

bors · 2025-06-25T00:12:39Z

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Rollup of 9 pull requests #142979

bors · 2025-06-25T00:12:40Z

📌 Commit 707a6f5 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-06-25T01:03:34Z

⌛ Testing commit 707a6f5 with merge 2c2bb99...

bors · 2025-06-25T04:04:39Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing 2c2bb99 to master...

github-actions · 2025-06-25T04:07:46Z

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 3de5b08 (parent) -> 2c2bb99 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 2c2bb995af398383e3b93b859302bdc447ca7a7c --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

dist-apple-various: 6282.2s -> 8074.8s (28.5%)
x86_64-apple-2: 4241.3s -> 5186.3s (22.3%)
aarch64-apple: 4408.5s -> 5093.4s (15.5%)
dist-android: 2460.9s -> 2130.5s (-13.4%)
dist-aarch64-apple: 6100.4s -> 5388.1s (-11.7%)
dist-ohos-x86_64: 3984.9s -> 4400.7s (10.4%)
mingw-check-2: 2128.4s -> 1958.6s (-8.0%)
dist-x86_64-windows-gnullvm: 5364.3s -> 5784.5s (7.8%)
x86_64-msvc-ext3: 6244.7s -> 5801.0s (-7.1%)
dist-aarch64-windows-gnullvm: 4376.6s -> 4663.7s (6.6%)

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 · 2025-06-25T18:08:27Z

Finished benchmarking commit (2c2bb99): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.1%, 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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[1.5%, 6.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-7.6%, -7.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -2.8%, secondary 4.7%)

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)	4.7%	[4.6%, 4.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-3.8%, -1.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-3.8%, -1.9%]	5

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 690.192s -> 689.044s (-0.17%)
Artifact size: 372.07 MiB -> 372.03 MiB (-0.01%)

update to literal-escaper 0.0.4 for better API without `unreachable` and faster string parsing This is the replacement for just the part of rust-lang#138163 dealing with the changed API of unescape functionality, since that got moved into its own crate. <del>This uses an unpublished version of literal-escaper (https://github.com/rust-lang/literal-escaper/pull/8).</del> r? `@nnethercote`

rustbot added T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) 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 May 14, 2025

hkBst mentioned this pull request May 14, 2025

Remove unreachable rust-lang/literal-escaper#8

Merged

rust-cloud-vms bot force-pushed the update-escaper branch from 7db948b to e61a48c Compare May 14, 2025 11:13

rustbot assigned nnethercote May 14, 2025