Filter out universals and lifetimes from stalled_vars

[compiler-errors]

lol

r? lcnr

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor

[compiler-errors]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 68fc0b9 with merge 60e7462…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 60e7462 (60e7462088610305e6250595e82c9b6b28709574)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (60e7462): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.3%]	23
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	38
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.6%	[-62.5%, -0.0%]	50
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.2%]	39

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.5%, secondary -1.7%)

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)	4.5%	[4.0%, 5.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[3.2%, 3.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.1%	[-5.9%, -4.7%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.5%	[4.0%, 5.0%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -13.9%)

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)	5.5%	[5.5%, 5.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-15.2%	[-53.5%, -1.1%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 750.544s -> 750.888s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 371.78 MiB -> 372.57 MiB (0.21%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors2 try parent=last @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4252464 with merge 6726382…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 6726382 (67263829b4ab7c5e32eab3d1e39350fedf26e551)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6726382): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 1.3%]	21
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	36
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.6%	[-62.1%, -0.0%]	49
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.2%]	37

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -1.1%)

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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.6%	[-5.6%, -5.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-2.1%, 1.2%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -18.2%)

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)	-18.2%	[-53.3%, -1.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 750.544s -> 751.179s (0.08%)
Artifact size: 371.78 MiB -> 372.52 MiB (0.20%)

[compiler-errors]

Ok, doesn't look like the eager filtering was actually that big of an impact, so I will drop the second commit. Pls just review the first.

[lcnr]

r=me on the first commit, please remove the second

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=lcnr rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 8addb6f has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8addb6f with merge 244bbfc...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 244bbfc to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 8072811 (parent) -> 244bbfc (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 244bbfc60ee8593db96892468eee876240cb7ba1 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-apple-2: 3559.7s -> 4486.5s (26.0%)
2. x86_64-apple-1: 7008.1s -> 5901.5s (-15.8%)
3. dist-ohos-x86_64: 4137.1s -> 4547.0s (9.9%)
4. dist-s390x-linux: 4707.6s -> 5139.9s (9.2%)
5. dist-x86_64-apple: 8184.7s -> 7449.2s (-9.0%)
6. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2506.7s -> 2728.8s (8.9%)
7. dist-apple-various: 6622.0s -> 6073.5s (-8.3%)
8. dist-powerpc64le-linux-gnu: 4967.5s -> 5360.1s (7.9%)
9. i686-gnu-2: 5321.1s -> 5727.7s (7.6%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3646.4s -> 3371.3s (-7.5%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (244bbfc): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-10.2%	[-29.8%, -0.1%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%)

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)	4.7%	[4.7%, 4.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-1.7%, 4.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -12.9%)

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)	-12.9%	[-22.9%, -6.3%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 752.812s -> 751.361s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 372.43 MiB -> 372.44 MiB (0.00%)