[DRAFT] Expr64

[nnethercote]

No description provided.

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-tools failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

Mismatch at src/expr.rs:778:
                 expr.span,
             ))
         }
-        ast::ExprKind::ForLoop(ref f) => {
-            Some(ControlFlow::new_for(&f.pat, &f.iter, &f.body, f.label, expr.span, f.kind))
-        }
+        ast::ExprKind::ForLoop(ref f) => Some(ControlFlow::new_for(
+            &f.pat, &f.iter, &f.body, f.label, expr.span, f.kind,
+        )),
         ast::ExprKind::Loop(ref block, label, _) => {
             Some(ControlFlow::new_loop(block, label, expr.span))
         }
{ "type": "test", "name": "test::self_tests", "event": "failed", "stdout": "Ran 8 self tests.\n\nthread 'test::self_tests' (63359) panicked at src/tools/rustfmt/src/test/mod.rs:422:5:\nassertion `left == right` failed: 1 self tests failed\n  left: 1\n right: 0\nstack backtrace:\n   0: __rustc::rust_begin_unwind\n   1: core::panicking::panic_fmt\n   2: core::panicking::assert_failed_inner\n   3: core::panicking::assert_failed::<u32, u32>\n   4: <rustfmt_nightly::test::self_tests::{closure#0} as core::ops::function::FnOnce<()>>::call_once\nnote: Some details are omitted, run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=full` for a verbose backtrace.\n" }
test test::system_tests ... ok
test test::idempotence_tests ... ok

test result: FAILED. 231 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 2.03s

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 05fc14a (05fc14a7ef6f521e0ff88a111b396eb0d1729253)
Base parent: c397dae (c397dae808f70caebab1fc4e11b3edf7e59f58c7)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (05fc14a): 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%, 1.0%]	129
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.6%]	87
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.0%]	129

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.4%, secondary 0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[0.7%, 3.2%]	50
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[1.1%, 8.8%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.8%	[-8.0%, -2.1%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[0.7%, 3.2%]	50

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.9%)

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)	2.5%	[1.8%, 3.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.2%	[-13.9%, -2.3%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 485.944s -> 485.74s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 393.37 MiB -> 393.45 MiB (0.02%)

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #158847) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.