-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 151
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
Re-add time-passes to the collected data #147
Comments
I was under the impression that "passes" as we know them today are basically going away in the compiler anyway so we wouldn't want to track this over time regardless. It may be worthwhile, though, investigating the ability to profile queries, as in the "near future" I'd imagine that everything is structured as a query? |
Hm, well, I'd certainly be willing to add queries to the data we collect. However, it looks to me that they are as prone (or even more so) to change names and meanings over time, and as such are unstable for long-term tracking. However, when comparing PR to PR (e.g. |
I am personally against adding tooling for time-passes, which I consider a dated concept. I believe that query-profiling data would probably be useful though. To me, though, I'd consider this lower priority versus getting benchmarks of the generated code up and going. |
It's true that query names do change though. But how much does that matter? I imagine typically you'd just want to view the composition of a single run in terms of the queries in which it spent its time -- you can compare "by eye" across runs, you're basically just looking for gross discrepancies there. The human can adjust for the different names (which are unlikely anyway as long as the two runs are close together in time). |
Okay, so I take it that |
It would be good to get opinions from the compiler team. I expected effectively nonexistent demand, but so far both @arielb1 and @eddyb have requested it for the runs I've done on PRs, so maybe it'd be worth re-adding. I could see us adding it only into the comparison view, where you could switch to a specific crate being shown and then you'd see the passes for it. Timing data has fluctuated too much (and still does) in the past for it to be worth it though I think.
cc @michaelwoerister @alexcrichton @nikomatsakis: What are your thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: