Skip to content

Conversation

@Zalathar
Copy link
Member

The query_feed function needs to be able to do two important things with (erased) query values: hash them, and debug-print them.

Both of those are things that the query's vtable already knows how to do. So by passing in a vtable to query_feed, we can give it a nicer signature, avoid having to unerase values in the function itself, and clean up some caller-side code as well.

@rustbot rustbot added A-query-system Area: The rustc query system (https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/query.html) 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 Jan 30, 2026
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 30, 2026

r? @jdonszelmann

rustbot has assigned @jdonszelmann.
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

@Zalathar
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 30, 2026
rust-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2026
Use the query vtable in `query_feed` plumbing
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 30, 2026

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@Zalathar
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try cancel

@rust-bors
Copy link
Contributor

rust-bors bot commented Jan 30, 2026

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

@Zalathar
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2026
Use the query vtable in `query_feed` plumbing
@rust-bors rust-bors bot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 30, 2026
@rust-bors
Copy link
Contributor

rust-bors bot commented Jan 30, 2026

💥 Test timed out after 21600s

@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jan 30, 2026

@bors try

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2026
Use the query vtable in `query_feed` plumbing
@rust-bors
Copy link
Contributor

rust-bors bot commented Jan 30, 2026

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7238d58 (7238d58d4d61ca7de1619789c4469d4dad134ec1, parent: e823167aa6f7f03aea8e91208ce9bace8ad9ebf2)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (7238d58): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking 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.

@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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.2% [0.0%, 0.3%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.2%, -0.0%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.5%, secondary -0.3%)

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)
2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-1.5% [-2.1%, -0.9%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.7% [-2.7%, -2.7%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.5% [-2.1%, -0.9%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.6%)

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)
5.7% [2.1%, 16.3%] 4
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-6.3% [-6.6%, -5.9%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.712s -> 474.274s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 397.79 MiB -> 397.68 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jan 30, 2026
@Zalathar
Copy link
Member Author

Perf results look noisy/bimodal, nothing remarkable that I can see.

@rustbot ready

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 31, 2026
@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Contributor

Not quite comfortable with the internals here, even though it looks correct. Maybe r? @oli-obk ? I think you worked on query feeding no?

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned jdonszelmann Feb 2, 2026
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 2, 2026

oli-obk is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Feb 3, 2026

Ah, wonderful. That's much better. I def wasn't looking at the larger picture, which I should have been doing

@bors r+

@rust-bors
Copy link
Contributor

rust-bors bot commented Feb 3, 2026

📌 Commit 09117c9 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@rust-bors rust-bors bot 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 Feb 3, 2026
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors rust-bors bot added merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Feb 3, 2026
@rust-bors
Copy link
Contributor

rust-bors bot commented Feb 3, 2026

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: oli-obk
Duration: 3h 40m 11s
Pushing 55407b8 to main...

@rust-bors rust-bors bot merged commit 55407b8 into rust-lang:main Feb 3, 2026
13 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.95.0 milestone Feb 3, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 3, 2026

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 79a1e77 (parent) -> 55407b8 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 226 test diffs

226 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 55407b8cdb1457c62e0c852f5b53a9cf63ec4e1b --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

  1. dist-apple-various: 3869.2s -> 4722.3s (+22.0%)
  2. aarch64-apple: 10874.0s -> 12793.2s (+17.6%)
  3. dist-armv7-linux: 5101.5s -> 5785.6s (+13.4%)
  4. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 6023.0s -> 5238.0s (-13.0%)
  5. dist-arm-linux-gnueabi: 5019.9s -> 5557.5s (+10.7%)
  6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4315.3s -> 4632.6s (+7.4%)
  7. i686-msvc-2: 7905.8s -> 7401.3s (-6.4%)
  8. dist-aarch64-msvc: 5864.1s -> 6232.7s (+6.3%)
  9. x86_64-gnu-aux: 8272.6s -> 7793.5s (-5.8%)
  10. dist-powerpc-linux: 5247.4s -> 5536.0s (+5.5%)
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
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (55407b8): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.5%, secondary 1.3%)

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)
1.3% [1.3%, 1.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.5% [-2.8%, -1.8%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.5% [-2.8%, -1.8%] 3

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.8%)

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)
2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 473.794s -> 471.991s (-0.38%)
Artifact size: 397.86 MiB -> 397.70 MiB (-0.04%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-query-system Area: The rustc query system (https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/query.html) merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants