Propagate #[allow(dead_code)] on adts to their inherent impls

[mu001999]

View all comments

This PR does:

1. propagate #[allow(dead_code)] on adts to their inherent impls and impl items
2. refactor the previous implementation for impl items of traits, and improve the performance

After the above, there is still some slight perf regressions because we indeed do more things (for inherent impls).

Fixes #149142

[mu001999]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 25aedf1 (25aedf1c569cd8fb010ed559082eacf12d56aaa2, parent: 3daae5e42ec9ba435212987331af1b7b8634fa90)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (25aedf1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

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%	[0.1%, 0.9%]	52
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.2%, 0.9%]	53

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary -1.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.9%	[-6.9%, -0.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-6.9%, 2.3%]	4

Cycles

Results (secondary 21.3%)

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)	21.3%	[20.3%, 22.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 519.503s -> 518.599s (-0.17%)
Artifact size: 401.51 MiB -> 401.51 MiB (-0.00%)

[mu001999]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 848b0fa (848b0fabbf422f36bd3435a5abda617bf5da7395, parent: 89a99936d9e76a50e8df622e7242190841fd871b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (848b0fa): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

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%, 0.2%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.7%, 0.2%]	17

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -5.4%, secondary 1.7%)

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)	3.3%	[1.6%, 5.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.4%	[-5.4%, -5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-5.4%	[-5.4%, -5.4%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.4%)

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)	4.4%	[4.4%, 4.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 522.035s -> 522.314s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 401.81 MiB -> 401.26 MiB (-0.14%)

[mu001999]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4d34c0f (4d34c0f5d692d92842d17a23bb004c9a68935c62)
Base parent: 98594f4 (98594f404ee741f97fefbae4aca049cde911bc94)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4d34c0f): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.4%, -0.2%]	25
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.4%, 0.3%]	32

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.9%, secondary 3.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.9%	[3.9%, 3.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[3.8%, 3.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.9%	[3.9%, 3.9%]	1

Cycles

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 523.739s -> 522.828s (-0.17%)
Artifact size: 401.37 MiB -> 401.86 MiB (0.12%)

[mu001999]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ac3f172 (ac3f1720b43fdf1c580ee653c1a9db9b9e07b739)
Base parent: 3768ec0 (3768ec06c826ef667b65a7d084610a11baf10776)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ac3f172): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.4%, -0.2%]	29
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.4%, 0.3%]	32

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.8%, -1.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-2.8%, 1.3%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 2.9%, 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)	2.9%	[2.2%, 4.0%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.9%	[2.2%, 4.0%]	5

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 522.822s -> 523.673s (0.16%)
Artifact size: 401.33 MiB -> 401.44 MiB (0.03%)

[rustbot]

r? @dingxiangfei2009

rustbot has assigned @dingxiangfei2009.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 73 candidates
• Random selection from 19 candidates

[mu001999]

@dingxiangfei2009 friendly ping

[mu001999]

Seems @dingxiangfei2009 has no time to review this, so @rustbot reroll

[fee1-dead]

#[allow(dead_code)]
struct Foo;

impl Foo {
    fn foo(&self) {}
}

Do we think this should actually make dead_code not fire on impl Foo? I think this is a bit subtle and I can see both ways. Nominating for T-lang.

@rustbot nominate lang

[rustbot]

Error: The feature nominate is not enabled in this repository.
To enable it add its section in the triagebot.toml in the root of the repository.

Please file an issue on GitHub at triagebot if there's a problem with this bot, or reach out on #triagebot on Zulip.