-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
Don't evaluate the sanitizer attribute if no sanitizer is enabled #145679
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This is just logical as the attribute has anyways no effect in that case.
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa |
@rustbot label +PG-exploit-mitigations |
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Don't evaluate the sanitizer attribute if no sanitizer is enabled
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Finished benchmarking commit (6fcc151): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action neededBenchmarking 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. @bors rollup=never Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (secondary 2.5%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (secondary -1.0%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 471.66s -> 470.248s (-0.30%) |
This is just logical as the attribute has anyways no effect in that case.
This is in reaction to some perf-metrics going up after #142681, specifically mentioned here: #142681 (comment).
r? rcvalle