Update rustc-perf

[weihanglo]

Just check if the latest commit works.

rust-lang/rustc-perf@4f313ad...cc81f96

See discussion on Zulip: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/247081-t-compiler.2Fperformance/topic/tempfile.20in.20rustc-perf.20make.20it.20hard.20to.20configure.20vendor/near/440442827

r? ghost

[weihanglo]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 01d08cd with merge e37ce49...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e37ce49 (e37ce490acfb2a567af0937a14fc1eae5e015312)

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build e37ce49

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e37ce49): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -4.9%)

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)	-4.9%	[-4.9%, -4.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 673.59s -> 674.271s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 315.74 MiB -> 315.69 MiB (-0.01%)

[weihanglo]

Instruction count
Compile-time: No results

Something went wrong, right?

[Kobzol]

No, everything seems fine :) Just no relevant differences were found.

[weihanglo]

Okay thanks! I guess we're ready to bump this before the diff becomes too big?

[Kobzol]

I don't think that we really need to update rustc-perf, there haven't been any relevant changes as far as I remember, but it also shouldn't hurt. So if you want to update it, feel free to r=me.

[weihanglo]

there haven't been any relevant changes as far as I remember

That's true. I am doing this because we might have some more changes (license update from our git dependencies, and a potential new --cargo-config flag) in the future, so better checking if it can be merged and merge it now.

Thanks for the review! I am going to merge :)

@bors r=Kobzol

[bors]

📌 Commit 99c9b07 has been approved by Kobzol

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 99c9b07 with merge 14562dd...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Kobzol
Pushing 14562dd to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (14562dd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 670.899s -> 671.46s (0.08%)
Artifact size: 315.55 MiB -> 315.58 MiB (0.01%)