exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting #116391

Nadrieril · 2023-10-03T17:59:45Z

SplitWildcard was pretty opaque. I replaced it with a more legible abstraction: ConstructorSet represents the set of constructors for patterns of a given type. This clarifies responsibilities: ConstructorSet handles one clear task, and diagnostic-related shenanigans can be done separately.

I'm quite excited, I had has this in mind for years but could never quite introduce it. This opens up possibilities, including type-specific optimisations (like using a FxHashSet to collect enum variants, which had been hackily attempted some years ago), my one-pass rewrite (#116042), and future librarification.

rustbot · 2023-10-03T17:59:54Z

r? @petrochenkov

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

Nadrieril · 2023-10-03T18:00:11Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

bors · 2023-10-03T18:01:21Z

⌛ Trying commit fda0301 with merge 48efd89...

exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting `SplitWildcard` was pretty opaque. I replaced it with a more legible abstraction: `ConstructorSet` represents the set of constructors for patterns of a given type. This clarifies responsibilities: `ConstructorSet` handles one clear task, and diagnostic-related shenanigans can be done separately. I'm quite excited, I had has this in mind for years but could never quite introduce it. This opens up possibilities, including type-specific optimisations (like using a `FxHashSet` to collect enum variants, which had been [hackily attempted some years ago](rust-lang#76918)), my one-pass rewrite (rust-lang#116042), and future librarification.

bors · 2023-10-03T19:15:02Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 48efd89 (48efd890e2a255f77efda76cdd4a66b3ca2061fa)

rust-timer · 2023-10-04T01:14:46Z

Finished benchmarking commit (48efd89): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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 may lead to changes in compiler perf.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-3.8%, -3.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.6%	[0.4%, 4.4%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 620.955s -> 620.956s (0.00%)
Artifact size: 271.99 MiB -> 272.07 MiB (0.03%)

petrochenkov · 2023-10-04T08:20:58Z

r? compiler

Nadrieril · 2023-10-04T14:05:52Z

@cjgillot I took your comments from #116042 into account here. The only other differences between here and there are a few word changes, and I no longer allocate seen into a vector in ConstructorSet::split.

cjgillot · 2023-10-04T16:52:24Z

compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/thir/pattern/deconstruct_pat.rs

+                }
+            }
+            ConstructorSet::SliceOfEmpty => {
+                // Behaves essentially like `Single`.


Why can't we reuse Single?

Well you got me thinking and it turns out that they don't completely behave like Single after all. We're allowed to match with slices of arbitrary length, it's just that lengths !=0 will be unreachable.

fn foo(nevers: &[!]) { match nevers { &[] => (), &[_] => (), &[_, _, _, ..] => (), }; }

I had completely missed that. It ended up ok because erring on the side of having more constructors in present doesn't affect correctness but still. Fixed it now. You've got a good instinct :D

cjgillot · 2023-10-12T20:09:21Z

@bors r+

bors · 2023-10-12T20:09:23Z

📌 Commit c1b29b3 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2023-10-12T21:33:34Z

⌛ Testing commit c1b29b3 with merge e20cb77...

bors · 2023-10-12T23:22:47Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing e20cb77 to master...

rust-timer · 2023-10-13T00:48:21Z

Finished benchmarking commit (e20cb77): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[0.5%, 5.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.3%]	5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[1.0%, 5.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -1.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 626.794s -> 628.455s (0.26%)
Artifact size: 271.27 MiB -> 271.30 MiB (0.01%)

50: Automated pull from upstream `master` r=Dajamante a=github-actions[bot] This PR pulls the following changes from the upstream repository: * rust-lang/rust#116619 * rust-lang/rust#115964 * rust-lang/rust#116391 * rust-lang/rust#116510 * rust-lang/rust#116671 * rust-lang/rust#116669 * rust-lang/rust#116654 * rust-lang/rust#116642 * rust-lang/rust#116625 * rust-lang/rust#116593 * rust-lang/rust#116649 * rust-lang/rust#116600 * rust-lang/rust#116628 Co-authored-by: Nadrieril <nadrieril+git@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Scott McMurray <scottmcm@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bjorn3 <17426603+bjorn3@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Nicholas Nethercote <n.nethercote@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Trevor Gross <tmgross@umich.edu> Co-authored-by: Georg Semmler <github@weiznich.de> Co-authored-by: Guillaume Gomez <guillaume.gomez@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: Gurinder Singh <frederick.the.fool@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: bors <bors@rust-lang.org>

Nadrieril · 2023-10-13T10:16:40Z

I'm baffled: the previous perf run showed a perf improvement on match-stress, and the in-between commits didn't change anything remotely related to enums. I can only guess that c1b29b3 (#116391) affected codegen somehow. Maybe instrumentation prevented inlining something?

pnkfelix · 2023-10-18T21:31:11Z

Visiting for weekly performance triage

the primary regressions were to cranelift-codegen-0.82.1 and cargo-0.60.0 in various incremental settings (mostly check builds)
the large (>5%) secondary regressions are all to match-stress.
the above cases were regressions for instruction-counts, but the cycle-counts didn't get marked as regressed in any of the same cases.
in all cases, the performance loss from these regressions was subsequently recovered (or masked) by PR 116505 "Automatically enable cross-crate inlining for small functions".
(I don't know if that's actually related or just an awesome change that bought so much performance that it masked this problem).
Since the match-stress one was relatively large, I looked at the self-profile results in the details which indicates a change in the delta(time) for match-stress might be due to new overheads in check_match and mir_borrowck.
But this is strange; I cannot tell how this PR could have affected codegen, which would be the only way I could imagine those functions being impacted.
Not marking as triaged for now; this mystery might be worth looking into a bit more. (But then again, the only significant regression was to a secondary stress test, so maybe its not worth spending time on.)

Nadrieril · 2023-10-18T21:43:02Z

For context, match-stress has always been extra-sensitive to anything I touch in exhaustiveness. Any layout change or inlining decision can affect it by a few percent

Nadrieril added 6 commits October 3, 2023 15:17

Rework range splitting api

8f9cd3d

Rework slice splitting api

590edee

Splitting ensures subrange comparison is all we need

429770a

Replace SplitWildcard with a cleaner ConstructorSet abstraction

c1800ef

Clarify handling of hidden variants

2f4cab4

Don't collect seen if not needed

fda0301

rustbot assigned petrochenkov Oct 3, 2023

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 3, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 3, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Oct 4, 2023

rustbot assigned compiler-errors and unassigned petrochenkov Oct 4, 2023

cjgillot mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2023

[Experiment] Rewrite exhaustiveness in one pass #116042

Closed

Clarify for review

edf6a2d

cjgillot reviewed Oct 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

Fix handling slices of empty types

c1b29b3

compiler-errors assigned cjgillot and unassigned compiler-errors Oct 12, 2023

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 12, 2023

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Oct 12, 2023

bors merged commit e20cb77 into rust-lang:master Oct 12, 2023
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.75.0 milestone Oct 12, 2023

bors mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2023

tidy watcher #114209

Open

Nadrieril deleted the constructorset branch October 13, 2023 00:15

rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Oct 13, 2023

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2023

Automated pull from upstream master ferrocene/ferrocene#50

Merged

Nadrieril added the A-exhaustiveness-checking Relating to exhaustiveness / usefulness checking of patterns label Dec 10, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting #116391

exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting #116391

Nadrieril commented Oct 3, 2023

rustbot commented Oct 3, 2023

Nadrieril commented Oct 3, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 3, 2023

bors commented Oct 3, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 4, 2023

petrochenkov commented Oct 4, 2023

Nadrieril commented Oct 4, 2023

cjgillot Oct 4, 2023

Nadrieril Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

cjgillot commented Oct 12, 2023

bors commented Oct 12, 2023

bors commented Oct 12, 2023

bors commented Oct 12, 2023

rust-timer commented Oct 13, 2023

Nadrieril commented Oct 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pnkfelix commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Nadrieril commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting #116391

exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting #116391

Conversation

Nadrieril commented Oct 3, 2023

rustbot commented Oct 3, 2023

Nadrieril commented Oct 3, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Oct 3, 2023

bors commented Oct 3, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Oct 4, 2023

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

petrochenkov commented Oct 4, 2023

Nadrieril commented Oct 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Nadrieril Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjgillot commented Oct 12, 2023

bors commented Oct 12, 2023

bors commented Oct 12, 2023

bors commented Oct 12, 2023

rust-timer commented Oct 13, 2023

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Nadrieril commented Oct 13, 2023 • edited Loading

pnkfelix commented Oct 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Nadrieril commented Oct 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Nadrieril Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Nadrieril commented Oct 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pnkfelix commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Nadrieril commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading