`transmute` should also assume non-null pointers by scottmcm · Pull Request #136735 · rust-lang/rust

scottmcm · 2025-02-08T08:24:28Z

Previously it only did integer-ABI things, but this way it does data pointers too. That gives more information in general to the backend, and allows slightly simplifying one of the helpers in slice iterators.

ghost · 2025-02-08T08:24:36Z

r? @oli-obk

rustbot has assigned @oli-obk.
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

ghost · 2025-02-08T08:27:19Z

+    // CHECK: %[[A:.+]] = load ptr
+    // CHECK-SAME: !nonnull
+    // CHECK: %[[B:.+]] = load ptr
+    // CHECK-SAME: !nonnull


annot: this now goes through the transmute instead of the load-as-nonnull, but still ends up getting the !nonnull on the load as desired. (And all the https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/slice-iter-nonnull.rs tests still pass as well, no updates needed.)

ghost · 2025-02-08T09:58:44Z

-        let mut _2: *const *const T;
-        let mut _3: *const std::ptr::NonNull<T>;
-        let mut _8: *const T;
+        let mut _2: *const T;
+        let mut _7: *const T;


Really not that substantial a difference, but saved a local and means it no longer has the pointer-to-pointer types.

ghost · 2025-02-08T10:01:43Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

ghost · 2025-02-08T10:02:53Z

⌛ Trying commit 48c0083 with merge 6ae82df...

ghost · 2025-02-08T10:33:40Z

 /// [`iter_mut`]: slice::iter_mut
 /// [slices]: slice
 #[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]
+#[repr(C)] // *Not* a guarantee, but keeps the codegen tests consistent


Is this about layout randomization? If so then using the //@ needs-deterministic-layouts test annotation should be better, that way people can still get randomized iters.

Ah, that does sound better.

@rustbot author

#[cfg_attr(not(doc), repr(C))] is also used in some places.

Thanks, the test annotation worked to keep it passing.

@rustbot ready

ghost · 2025-02-08T11:47:26Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 6ae82df (6ae82df21229ba9bca0dd9144cc5781c1875c6df)

ghost · 2025-02-08T13:55:31Z

Finished benchmarking commit (6ae82df): comparison URL.

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

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 may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.2%, 3.1%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.9%, 3.1%]	16

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary 2.4%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[2.1%, 4.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.9%	[-6.6%, -2.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-6.6%, 4.3%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 2.8%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-0.9%, 2.7%]	2

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.4%]	16
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	34
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	48
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.8%, 0.4%]	64

Bootstrap: 781.002s -> 777.406s (-0.46%)
Artifact size: 329.08 MiB -> 328.44 MiB (-0.19%)

ghost · 2025-02-08T13:58:16Z

(syn is currently being noisy)

ghost · 2025-02-09T00:05:25Z

Interesting, saved 630K off librustc_driver.so somehow, and a nice improvement in bootstrap time.

ghost · 2025-02-11T09:33:03Z

        } else {
            // SAFETY: for non-ZSTs, the type invariant ensures it cannot be null
-            let $end = unsafe { *(&raw const $this.end_or_len).cast::<NonNull<T>>() };
+            let $end = unsafe { mem::transmute::<*const T, NonNull<T>>($this.end_or_len) };


Would it make sense/work to use NonNull::new_unchecked here and make the body of that use a transmute instead?

In general I would like to move NonNull to using transmutes.

But in this specific case I really don't want to do that, because it adds a UbCheck which would then have major impact on perf because of just how critical next is.

(Though maybe after #136771, once the super-critical methods aren't using this helper macro any more, it could be worth trying.)

ghost · 2025-02-13T06:50:12Z

Rebased to fix the conflict with the //@ compile-flags change.

@bors r=oli-obk

ghost · 2025-02-13T06:50:15Z

📌 Commit 083672b has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Previously it only did integer-ABI things, but this way it does data pointers too. That gives more information in general to the backend, and allows slightly simplifying one of the helpers in slice iterators.

ghost · 2025-02-13T07:02:35Z

Weird, somehow the rebase got the indent wrong and broke tidy. Well, fixed 🤷

@bors r=oli-obk

ghost · 2025-02-13T07:02:38Z

📌 Commit 0cc14b6 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

ghost · 2025-02-14T09:06:20Z

⌛ Testing commit 0cc14b6 with merge d88ffcd...

ghost · 2025-02-14T11:59:31Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing d88ffcd to master...

ghost · 2025-02-14T13:17:00Z

Finished benchmarking commit (d88ffcd): 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

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 0.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.0%, 0.8%]	11

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.5%, secondary -0.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.9%	[4.9%, 4.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-3.7%, -2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-4.0%, -3.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-3.7%, 4.9%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary -1.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary -0.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	34
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	43
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.8%, 0.3%]	64

Bootstrap: 787.772s -> 789.359s (0.20%)
Artifact size: 348.36 MiB -> 347.77 MiB (-0.17%)

ghost · 2025-02-18T08:51:40Z

Performance is a wash.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

rustbot assigned oli-obk Feb 8, 2025

rustbot added 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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Feb 8, 2025

scottmcm commented Feb 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

scottmcm force-pushed the transmute-nonnull branch from 486645f to 48c0083 Compare February 8, 2025 08:51

scottmcm commented Feb 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

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 Feb 8, 2025

the8472 reviewed Feb 8, 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 Feb 8, 2025

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 Feb 8, 2025

scottmcm force-pushed the transmute-nonnull branch from 48c0083 to be1489f Compare February 9, 2025 00:13

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 Feb 9, 2025

scottmcm mentioned this pull request Feb 9, 2025

Simplify slice::Iter::next enough that it inlines #136771

Merged

oli-obk reviewed Feb 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

scottmcm force-pushed the transmute-nonnull branch from be1489f to 083672b Compare February 13, 2025 06:49

bors 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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Feb 13, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

transmute should also assume non-null pointers

0cc14b6

Previously it only did integer-ABI things, but this way it does data pointers too. That gives more information in general to the backend, and allows slightly simplifying one of the helpers in slice iterators.

scottmcm force-pushed the transmute-nonnull branch from 083672b to 0cc14b6 Compare February 13, 2025 07:01

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Feb 14, 2025

bors merged commit d88ffcd into rust-lang:master Feb 14, 2025

rustbot added this to the 1.86.0 milestone Feb 14, 2025

rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Feb 18, 2025

scottmcm deleted the transmute-nonnull branch February 19, 2025 01:29

eddyb mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2025

rustup: update to nightly-2025-05-09 (~1.88) and Rust 2024 edition. Rust-GPU/rust-gpu#249

Merged

delan mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2025

cargo: Bump rustc to 1.89 servo/servo#36818

Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

scottmcm commented Feb 8, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 8, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

ghost Feb 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 8, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented Feb 8, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 8, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented Feb 8, 2025

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

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 8, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 11, 2025 • edited by oli-obk Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost Feb 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 13, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 13, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented Feb 13, 2025 • edited by scottmcm Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 13, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 14, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 14, 2025

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 14, 2025

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

Uh oh!

ghost commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

10 participants

ghost Feb 11, 2025 •

edited by oli-obk

Loading

ghost commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited by scottmcm

Loading