rustc_errors: only box the diagnostic field in DiagnosticBuilder.
#93259
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt. |
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
|
r? @jackh726 (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
|
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-perf
|
⌛ Trying commit a8dfa37 with merge 8f60e8e4f783bfe4597505a80c99bfce86940cbd... |
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
|
Queued 8f60e8e4f783bfe4597505a80c99bfce86940cbd with parent ef119d7, future comparison URL. |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (8f60e8e4f783bfe4597505a80c99bfce86940cbd): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. 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 led to changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-perf
|
Whoa, this is pretty big, do we have this much variance, or could it be a improvement for
|
|
I suspect it's real -- maybe not that pronounced, but 'expected' non-change is typically 2-3% at most for the smaller crates and ~1% for the larger ones. |
eddyb
changed the title
diagnostic field in DiagnosticBuilder.diagnostic field in DiagnosticBuilder.
|
I didn't expect that, and had a trick I wanted to use to see if I can counter any regressions, but even the small changes being filtered out (from the main benchmarks, not bootstrap times) are all green, no red in there. I've marked this PR as ready to review, and will be opening separate ones for any other perf experiments. |
|
Simple enough @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit f5a3271 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit f5a3271 with merge 1025d76ae377dfc51848603ab5fa8562c85c9b6b... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (25862ff): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2022
rustc_errors: let `DiagnosticBuilder::emit` return a "guarantee of emission".
That is, `DiagnosticBuilder` is now generic over the return type of `.emit()`, so we'll now have:
* `DiagnosticBuilder<ErrorReported>` for error (incl. fatal/bug) diagnostics
* can only be created via a `const L: Level`-generic constructor, that limits allowed variants via a `where` clause, so not even `rustc_errors` can accidentally bypass this limitation
* asserts `diagnostic.is_error()` on emission, just in case the construction restriction was bypassed (e.g. by replacing the whole `Diagnostic` inside `DiagnosticBuilder`)
* `.emit()` returns `ErrorReported`, as a "proof" token that `.emit()` was called
(though note that this isn't a real guarantee until after completing the work on
rust-lang#69426)
* `DiagnosticBuilder<()>` for everything else (warnings, notes, etc.)
* can also be obtained from other `DiagnosticBuilder`s by calling `.forget_guarantee()`
This PR is a companion to other ongoing work, namely:
* rust-lang#69426
and it's ongoing implementation:
rust-lang#93222
the API changes in this PR are needed to get statically-checked "only errors produce `ErrorReported` from `.emit()`", but doesn't itself provide any really strong guarantees without those other `ErrorReported` changes
* rust-lang#93244
would make the choices of API changes (esp. naming) in this PR fit better overall
In order to be able to let `.emit()` return anything trustable, several changes had to be made:
* `Diagnostic`'s `level` field is now private to `rustc_errors`, to disallow arbitrary "downgrade"s from "some kind of error" to "warning" (or anything else that doesn't cause compilation to fail)
* it's still possible to replace the whole `Diagnostic` inside the `DiagnosticBuilder`, sadly, that's harder to fix, but it's unlikely enough that we can paper over it with asserts on `.emit()`
* `.cancel()` now consumes `DiagnosticBuilder`, preventing `.emit()` calls on a cancelled diagnostic
* it's also now done internally, through `DiagnosticBuilder`-private state, instead of having a `Level::Cancelled` variant that can be read (or worse, written) by the user
* this removes a hazard of calling `.cancel()` on an error then continuing to attach details to it, and even expect to be able to `.emit()` it
* warnings were switched to *only* `can_emit_warnings` on emission (instead of pre-cancelling early)
* `struct_dummy` was removed (as it relied on a pre-`Cancelled` `Diagnostic`)
* since `.emit()` doesn't consume the `DiagnosticBuilder` <sub>(I tried and gave up, it's much more work than this PR)</sub>,
we have to make `.emit()` idempotent wrt the guarantees it returns
* thankfully, `err.emit(); err.emit();` can return `ErrorReported` both times, as the second `.emit()` call has no side-effects *only* because the first one did do the appropriate emission
* `&mut Diagnostic` is now used in a lot of function signatures, which used to take `&mut DiagnosticBuilder` (in the interest of not having to make those functions generic)
* the APIs were already mostly identical, allowing for low-effort porting to this new setup
* only some of the suggestion methods needed some rework, to have the extra `DiagnosticBuilder` functionality on the `Diagnostic` methods themselves (that change is also present in rust-lang#93259)
* `.emit()`/`.cancel()` aren't available, but IMO calling them from an "error decorator/annotator" function isn't a good practice, and can lead to strange behavior (from the caller's perspective)
* `.downgrade_to_delayed_bug()` was added, letting you convert any `.is_error()` diagnostic into a `delay_span_bug` one (which works because in both cases the guarantees available are the same)
This PR should ideally be reviewed commit-by-commit, since there is a lot of fallout in each.
r? `@estebank` cc `@Manishearth` `@nikomatsakis` `@mark-i-m`
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2022
rustc_errors: let `DiagnosticBuilder::emit` return a "guarantee of emission".
That is, `DiagnosticBuilder` is now generic over the return type of `.emit()`, so we'll now have:
* `DiagnosticBuilder<ErrorReported>` for error (incl. fatal/bug) diagnostics
* can only be created via a `const L: Level`-generic constructor, that limits allowed variants via a `where` clause, so not even `rustc_errors` can accidentally bypass this limitation
* asserts `diagnostic.is_error()` on emission, just in case the construction restriction was bypassed (e.g. by replacing the whole `Diagnostic` inside `DiagnosticBuilder`)
* `.emit()` returns `ErrorReported`, as a "proof" token that `.emit()` was called
(though note that this isn't a real guarantee until after completing the work on
rust-lang#69426)
* `DiagnosticBuilder<()>` for everything else (warnings, notes, etc.)
* can also be obtained from other `DiagnosticBuilder`s by calling `.forget_guarantee()`
This PR is a companion to other ongoing work, namely:
* rust-lang#69426
and it's ongoing implementation:
rust-lang#93222
the API changes in this PR are needed to get statically-checked "only errors produce `ErrorReported` from `.emit()`", but doesn't itself provide any really strong guarantees without those other `ErrorReported` changes
* rust-lang#93244
would make the choices of API changes (esp. naming) in this PR fit better overall
In order to be able to let `.emit()` return anything trustable, several changes had to be made:
* `Diagnostic`'s `level` field is now private to `rustc_errors`, to disallow arbitrary "downgrade"s from "some kind of error" to "warning" (or anything else that doesn't cause compilation to fail)
* it's still possible to replace the whole `Diagnostic` inside the `DiagnosticBuilder`, sadly, that's harder to fix, but it's unlikely enough that we can paper over it with asserts on `.emit()`
* `.cancel()` now consumes `DiagnosticBuilder`, preventing `.emit()` calls on a cancelled diagnostic
* it's also now done internally, through `DiagnosticBuilder`-private state, instead of having a `Level::Cancelled` variant that can be read (or worse, written) by the user
* this removes a hazard of calling `.cancel()` on an error then continuing to attach details to it, and even expect to be able to `.emit()` it
* warnings were switched to *only* `can_emit_warnings` on emission (instead of pre-cancelling early)
* `struct_dummy` was removed (as it relied on a pre-`Cancelled` `Diagnostic`)
* since `.emit()` doesn't consume the `DiagnosticBuilder` <sub>(I tried and gave up, it's much more work than this PR)</sub>,
we have to make `.emit()` idempotent wrt the guarantees it returns
* thankfully, `err.emit(); err.emit();` can return `ErrorReported` both times, as the second `.emit()` call has no side-effects *only* because the first one did do the appropriate emission
* `&mut Diagnostic` is now used in a lot of function signatures, which used to take `&mut DiagnosticBuilder` (in the interest of not having to make those functions generic)
* the APIs were already mostly identical, allowing for low-effort porting to this new setup
* only some of the suggestion methods needed some rework, to have the extra `DiagnosticBuilder` functionality on the `Diagnostic` methods themselves (that change is also present in rust-lang#93259)
* `.emit()`/`.cancel()` aren't available, but IMO calling them from an "error decorator/annotator" function isn't a good practice, and can lead to strange behavior (from the caller's perspective)
* `.downgrade_to_delayed_bug()` was added, letting you convert any `.is_error()` diagnostic into a `delay_span_bug` one (which works because in both cases the guarantees available are the same)
This PR should ideally be reviewed commit-by-commit, since there is a lot of fallout in each.
r? `@estebank` cc `@Manishearth` `@nikomatsakis` `@mark-i-m`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I happened to need to do the first change (replacing
allow_suggestionswith equivalent functionality onDiagnosticitself) as part of a larger change, and noticed that there's only two fields left inDiagnosticBuilderInner.So with this PR, instead of a single pointer,
DiagnosticBuilderis two pointers, which should work just as well for passing it by value (and may even work better wrt some operations, though probably not by much).But anything that was already taking advantage of
DiagnosticBuilderbeing a single pointer, and wrapping it further (e.g.Result<T, DiagnosticBuilder>w/ non-ZSTT),will probably see a slowdown, so I want to do a perf run before even trying to propose this.