Do not run ConstProp on mir_for_ctfe.

[cjgillot]

This pass does not seem to be useful any more. The const-prop lints are now run by tcx.mir_drops_elaborated_and_const_checked, and the const-prop opt should never emit any diagnostic.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e0360782a7323f60b7f8645891127aed0766df80 with merge a33e912fd334cf73b6497dfd6cbbede0f36d291f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a33e912fd334cf73b6497dfd6cbbede0f36d291f (a33e912fd334cf73b6497dfd6cbbede0f36d291f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a33e912fd334cf73b6497dfd6cbbede0f36d291f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

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.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results

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)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	4

Bootstrap: 647.543s -> 648.82s (0.20%)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7dd6d754bac2d75156a877f8294c1e4388ca9d62 with merge 185cd7a7b17b6ca365ff8d2a0500d02dd960d1d3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 185cd7a7b17b6ca365ff8d2a0500d02dd960d1d3 (185cd7a7b17b6ca365ff8d2a0500d02dd960d1d3)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (185cd7a7b17b6ca365ff8d2a0500d02dd960d1d3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.1%, -0.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-2.9%, -1.1%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.1%, -0.4%]	10

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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%	[2.7%, 3.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.8%, -1.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[2.7%, 3.3%]	3

Cycles

Results

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)	2.1%	[1.6%, 2.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 650.185s -> 652.139s (0.30%)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[cjgillot]

r? wg-mir-opt

[rustbot]

Failed to set assignee to vertexclique: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

[cjgillot]

r? wg-mir-opt

[rustbot]

Failed to set assignee to vertexclique: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

[cjgillot]

r? compiler

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e223098 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e223098 with merge 1cabb8e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 1cabb8e to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1cabb8e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.2%, -0.5%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-3.0%, -1.1%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, 0.2%]	9

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1

Cycles

Results

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)	-3.8%	[-5.1%, -1.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.8%	[-5.1%, -1.3%]	7

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 649.856s -> 648.817s (-0.16%)