-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
[DO NOT MERGE] Perf run for zoxc's rustc-hash #93651
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.
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
Conversation
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
⌛ Trying commit bafb03e with merge b02568378e684389e22a3d4af29678471872294b... |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Queued b02568378e684389e22a3d4af29678471872294b with parent 4e8fb74, future comparison URL. |
Finished benchmarking commit (b02568378e684389e22a3d4af29678471872294b): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run shows 11 relevant improvements 🎉 but 3 relevant regressions 😿 to instruction counts.
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 led to changes in compiler perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @bors rollup=never |
The instruction count results were a non-event, but the others ( |
This is a perf run to try and reproduce zoxc's results on their version of 64b fxhash, from their rustc-hash PR .
I don't remember it being tried on perf.rlo (and it seems likely that it will not matter in practice) so let's check that.
r? @ghost