rustc_middle: Implement the partial_cmp operation for DefIds

[petrochenkov]

View all comments

And use it in partial_cmp implementation for visibilities.

[rustbot]

r? @jdonszelmann

rustbot has assigned @jdonszelmann.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler, types
• compiler, types expanded to 72 candidates
• Random selection from 17 candidates

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 325ad17 (325ad1787c0d50afb671abb3c4c772ed43e5e6bb, parent: 365515367b4a20a315ec65a466991441b9dfba66)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (325ad17): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

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.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.0%)

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)	3.0%	[2.6%, 3.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.1%)

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)	2.1%	[2.0%, 2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 490.033s -> 491.222s (0.24%)
Artifact size: 394.42 MiB -> 394.37 MiB (-0.01%)

[petrochenkov]

Weird.
Blocking on #155257 for now.
@rustbot blocked

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[petrochenkov]

I was going to update this to implement partial_cmp for DefIds before re-benchmarking.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a708340 (a708340f5d00656b0a7d7dd58b3bd1f9fb176530, parent: 2f43fe430374fce8c75d477bdb78715d5c0349c4)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a708340): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.8%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 487.764s -> 486.277s (-0.30%)
Artifact size: 393.48 MiB -> 393.47 MiB (-0.00%)

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4ca07d8 (4ca07d8f8305850114e9a7ca8f59a51213e860e4, parent: 4ddb0b7f8ecda9dbdbcbc0519c9988badbd65d1c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4ca07d8): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.3%, secondary -4.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.3%	[2.4%, 4.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-4.1%, -4.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[2.4%, 4.3%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.4%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 489.39s -> 489.388s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 393.41 MiB -> 393.47 MiB (0.02%)

[petrochenkov]

I think I'd like to merge this anyway, as a refactoring.
@bors rollup=maybe
@rustbot ready