-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
privacy: cache for trait ref in projection #146128
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
r? @SparrowLii
rustbot has assigned @SparrowLii.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.
Use r?
to explicitly pick a reviewer
@bors try @rust-timer queue
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
privacy: cache for trait ref in projection
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (97bca8b): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text belowBenchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -0.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 465.026s -> 467.402s (0.51%) |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fixes #145741
Performance test results from local for #145741:
I'm uncertain if this is a completely correct fix, as I've just reviewed the privacy update logic and it appears that a single update should suffice in the alias term. Feel free to close this if there are any algorithmic inaccuracies, and I'll investigate further.