Split-up stability_index query #143845

cjgillot · 2025-07-12T16:27:38Z

This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic stability_index query, and directly implement lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability} queries.

The basic idea is to:

move per-attribute sanity checks into check_attr.rs;
move attribute compatibility checks into the MissingStabilityAnnotations visitor;
progressively dismantle the Annotator visitor and the stability_index query.

The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when #[automatically_derived] is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour.

Perf in #143845 (comment) shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression.

This PR changes check_attr, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.

cjgillot · 2025-07-12T16:27:49Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Split-up stability_index query r? `@ghost` for perf

bors · 2025-07-12T16:29:00Z

⌛ Trying commit 609a38d with merge 5597f02...

bors · 2025-07-12T18:43:34Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5597f02 (5597f0229dcd4b4f18b13e858f611b259df9d724)

rust-timer · 2025-07-13T00:56:47Z

Finished benchmarking commit (5597f02): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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%, 0.4%]	38
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.1%, 3.2%]	27
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	33
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.2%, -0.0%]	30
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.6%, 0.4%]	71

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, 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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.7%, 2.7%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.2%	[-6.2%, -4.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-1.5%, 3.3%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.0%, 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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[2.3%, 8.8%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.7%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 466.126s -> 464.517s (-0.35%)
Artifact size: 374.63 MiB -> 372.12 MiB (-0.67%)

rustbot · 2025-07-13T13:15:49Z

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
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

rustbot · 2025-07-13T13:15:50Z

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

bors · 2025-07-14T08:43:18Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #143779) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

jieyouxu

Thanks, this looks good to me in general. A few minor issues.

I looked at the perf, and agreed that the regression re. unused warnings seems fine to accept.

tests/ui/feature-gates/issue-43106-gating-of-builtin-attrs.stderr

compiler/rustc_hir/src/target.rs

compiler/rustc_passes/src/stability.rs

jieyouxu · 2025-07-16T16:02:11Z

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2025-07-16T16:02:15Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

bors · 2025-07-18T16:28:03Z

⌛ Testing commit 7662731 with merge 8f08b3a...

bors · 2025-07-18T19:28:16Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 8f08b3a to master...

github-actions · 2025-07-18T19:31:09Z

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 8231065 (parent) -> 8f08b3a (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 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 8f08b3a32478b8d0507732800ecb548a76e0fd0c --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

dist-aarch64-apple: 6537.1s -> 4757.3s (-27.2%)
aarch64-apple: 5337.8s -> 4012.6s (-24.8%)
dist-x86_64-apple: 7833.2s -> 9616.6s (22.8%)
pr-check-2: 2202.6s -> 2661.6s (20.8%)
dist-apple-various: 7691.3s -> 9106.0s (18.4%)
x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2725.3s -> 3206.3s (17.6%)
arm-android: 5852.0s -> 6746.5s (15.3%)
x86_64-apple-2: 4737.8s -> 5415.0s (14.3%)
pr-check-1: 1499.7s -> 1706.1s (13.8%)
x86_64-msvc-ext2: 6429.3s -> 5568.8s (-13.4%)

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 · 2025-07-18T20:39:06Z

Finished benchmarking commit (8f08b3a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
a new PR with a fix for the regression.
If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
were already notified of this PR).

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

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%, 0.4%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[0.1%, 3.3%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	23
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.6%, 0.4%]	52

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%, 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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.7%, -1.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-4.2%, -1.1%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.7%, -1.6%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.0%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	5.5%	[5.0%, 5.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.0%	[-6.0%, -6.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 465.935s -> 465.311s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 374.69 MiB -> 374.60 MiB (-0.02%)

Split-up stability_index query This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries. The basic idea is to: - move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`; - move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor; - progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query. The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour. Perf in rust-lang/rust#143845 (comment) shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression. This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.

Split-up stability_index query This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries. The basic idea is to: - move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`; - move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor; - progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query. The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour. Perf in rust-lang#143845 (comment) shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression. This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.

rylev · 2025-07-22T08:35:43Z

As stated here, the perf regressions were considered acceptable.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

Implement `stability_implications` without a visitor. Since #143845, the `Annotator` visitor was a no-op when the crate is not staged_api. This PR avoids using a visitor altogether, making `stability_implications` truly a no-op in most cases.

Implement `stability_implications` without a visitor. Since rust-lang/rust#143845, the `Annotator` visitor was a no-op when the crate is not staged_api. This PR avoids using a visitor altogether, making `stability_implications` truly a no-op in most cases.

Split-up stability_index query This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries. The basic idea is to: - move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`; - move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor; - progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query. The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour. Perf in rust-lang/rust#143845 (comment) shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression. This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.

Implement `stability_implications` without a visitor. Since rust-lang/rust#143845, the `Annotator` visitor was a no-op when the crate is not staged_api. This PR avoids using a visitor altogether, making `stability_implications` truly a no-op in most cases.

Split-up stability_index query This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries. The basic idea is to: - move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`; - move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor; - progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query. The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour. Perf in rust-lang/rust#143845 (comment) shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression. This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.

Implement `stability_implications` without a visitor. Since rust-lang/rust#143845, the `Annotator` visitor was a no-op when the crate is not staged_api. This PR avoids using a visitor altogether, making `stability_implications` truly a no-op in most cases.

rustbot added A-attributes Area: Attributes (`#[…]`, `#![…]`) S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 12, 2025

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 Jul 12, 2025

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2025

Auto merge of #143845 - cjgillot:stability-query, r=<try>

5597f02

Split-up stability_index query r? `@ghost` for perf

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jul 13, 2025

cjgillot force-pushed the stability-query branch from 609a38d to 89747b9 Compare July 13, 2025 12:42

cjgillot marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2025 13:15

rustbot assigned jieyouxu Jul 13, 2025

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 13, 2025

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Jul 13, 2025

cjgillot force-pushed the stability-query branch from 89747b9 to 2890684 Compare July 13, 2025 14:07

cjgillot force-pushed the stability-query branch from 2890684 to 0fea922 Compare July 15, 2025 10:28

jieyouxu approved these changes Jul 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

rustbot 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 Jul 16, 2025

cjgillot force-pushed the stability-query branch from 0fea922 to df06bb5 Compare July 16, 2025 22:44

bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jul 18, 2025

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 18, 2025

bors merged commit 8f08b3a into rust-lang:master Jul 18, 2025
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.90.0 milestone Jul 18, 2025

This was referenced Jul 18, 2025

Add lint rule for #[deprecated] on re-exports (rebase) #142731

Open

Implement RFC 3631: add rustdoc doc_cfg features #138907

Open

cjgillot deleted the stability-query branch July 18, 2025 21:05

dtolnay mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2025

Delete #[automatically_derived] on impl blocks that are not trait impls dtolnay/cxx#1537

Merged

rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jul 22, 2025

cjgillot mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2025

Implement stability_implications without a visitor. #144873

Merged

Split-up stability_index query #143845

Split-up stability_index query #143845

Uh oh!

Conversation

cjgillot commented Jul 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Jul 12, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Jul 12, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Jul 12, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Jul 13, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jul 13, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jul 13, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jul 14, 2025

Uh oh!

jieyouxu left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jieyouxu commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jul 18, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Jul 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 18, 2025

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Jul 18, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

rylev commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cjgillot commented Jul 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jieyouxu left a comment •

edited

Loading