Skip to content

Conversation

@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Contributor

@jdonszelmann jdonszelmann commented Sep 8, 2025

Supersedes #140010
Tracking issue: #125418

Getting started:

#![feature(eii)]

#[eii(eii1)]
pub fn decl1(x: u64) 
// body optional (it's the default)
{
    println!("default {x}");
}

// in another crate, maybe
#[eii1]
pub fn decl2(x: u64) {
    println!("explicit {x}");
}

fn main() {
    decl1(4);
}

@rustbot rustbot added A-attributes Area: Attributes (`#[…]`, `#![…]`) A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-clippy Relevant to the Clippy team. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 8, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

// `SymbolExportLevel::Rust` export level but may end up being exported in dylibs.
|| codegen_attrs.flags.contains(CodegenFnAttrFlags::USED_COMPILER)
|| codegen_attrs.flags.contains(CodegenFnAttrFlags::USED_LINKER)
// Right now, the only way to get "foreign item symbol aliases" is by being an EII-implementation.
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jdonszelmann jdonszelmann Sep 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TODO: do we need this:

  • option 1: we do and implement our own reachability analysis based on it separate from RUSTC_STD_INTERNAL_SYMBOL.
  • option 2: we don't cause we also use RUSTC_STD_INTERNAL_SYMBOL on all EIIs. In that case we should rename STD_INTERNAL_SYMBOL
  • option 3: same as option 2 but maybe we shouldn't use RUSTC_STD_INTERNAL_SYMBOL in the first place; we leave it as-is and create a new flag thta's like it but specifically for EIIs and named something else like RUSTC_USED_BY_NONDIRECT_DEP_CRATE or whatever nicer name we can think of that (as long as it doesn't use STD since it's not really specific to that anymore)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

despite STD_INTERNAL_SYMBOL working, and we can test with it for a bit, this is not the way we should do it. i.e. not option 2.


#[eii(eii1)]
pub fn decl1(x: u64) {
//~^ WARN function `decl1` is never used
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It took me a little bit to decide what is the expected behavior here. We might want to remove this warning. Defaults are in some way expected to be unused. However, here we can prove it because the explicit impl is in the same crate hence the warning.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removing the warning actually makes the code a tiny bit trickier

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2025
[DONT MERGE] externally implementable items
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 9, 2025
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 9, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d5a6633 (d5a66337e06d3b77a1ab8f6793055535195c3ae9, parent: 364da5d88d772fa40fb20353443595385443ac25)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d5a6633): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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% [0.1%, 1.5%] 19
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.4% [0.1%, 1.0%] 44
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.0% [-0.1%, -0.0%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.3% [0.1%, 1.5%] 19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.7%, secondary 3.9%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.7% [0.6%, 2.3%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.7% [1.1%, 11.2%] 16
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.9%, -1.2%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.7% [0.6%, 2.3%] 6

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%, 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)
3.1% [3.1%, 3.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.2% [2.5%, 3.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.8% [-4.1%, -2.0%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.1% [3.1%, 3.1%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, 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)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 93
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.3%] 61
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 93

Bootstrap: 468.052s -> 471.14s (0.66%)
Artifact size: 387.52 MiB -> 390.25 MiB (0.71%)

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Sep 9, 2025
@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, shit. I think I know some fixes but I hoped this wouldn't happen

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Nov 5, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Nov 5, 2025

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the base branch diverged in a way that cannot
be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest base
branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository,
you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

  1. git checkout eiiv3 (switch to your branch)
  2. git fetch upstream HEAD (retrieve the latest base branch)
  3. git rebase upstream/HEAD -p (rebase on top of it)
  4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
  5. git push self eiiv3 --force-with-lease (update this PR)

You may also read
Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing
for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub.
It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is
handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Nov 5, 2025

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2025
[DONT MERGE] externally implementable items
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Nov 5, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 5e71ee2 (5e71ee21afa796da7b01890fdabe78829edf4a87, parent: 1ef7943ee607160a564655b6596f83670ef95df5)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (5e71ee2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)
0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 6
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.4% [0.1%, 1.8%] 24
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.1%, -0.1%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.2%, 0.6%] 6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary 2.3%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.5% [0.9%, 2.0%] 4
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
3.3% [0.8%, 6.6%] 14
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.9% [-3.4%, -0.9%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.5% [0.9%, 2.0%] 4

Cycles

Results (primary 3.6%, secondary 0.2%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
3.6% [3.6%, 3.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
4.8% [1.4%, 10.0%] 7
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-4.4% [-7.0%, -3.2%] 7
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.6% [3.6%, 3.6%] 1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, 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)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 85
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.3%] 60
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.1%] 85

Bootstrap: 474.243s -> 477.569s (0.70%)
Artifact size: 390.98 MiB -> 391.46 MiB (0.12%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-attributes Area: Attributes (`#[…]`, `#![…]`) A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-clippy Relevant to the Clippy team. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants