Hir Param refactor

[JonathanBrouwer]

View all comments

TODO very wip

Fixes #162677 (comment)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for be17f02 failed: CI. Failed jobs:

• try - dist-aarch64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)
• try - dist-x86_64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b0e36da (b0e36dabc37e5dc5550a520d05ab86f3c07ef73a)
Base parent: f48b3e6 (f48b3e61eeece268609bd920fcca1ded047db7ca)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b0e36da): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.3%, 3.2%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	52
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.0%]	56
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, 0.1%]	55

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.6%	[-6.6%, -6.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[2.2%, 6.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 490.122s -> 491.234s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 408.65 MiB -> 409.03 MiB (0.09%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 98fcc7d (98fcc7dcfb2928edc1eb20567d94e73d45a2c768)
Base parent: 76c9095 (76c90957b7e422c4b9c45192b0197214d7de5a54)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build 98fcc7d

[rust-timer]

Commit was not enqueued, since no previous benchmark request was found

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d38ae15): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=iffy rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.2%, 2.1%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 2.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.1%, 2.8%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 4.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.5%	[3.5%, 3.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.5%	[2.1%, 14.7%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-2.3%, 3.5%]	2

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 490.84s -> 488.498s (-0.48%)
Artifact size: 406.48 MiB -> 406.87 MiB (0.10%)

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d045a1c (d045a1c27c36fcb2829cd4dd125c3ad21e389162)
Base parent: 76c9095 (76c90957b7e422c4b9c45192b0197214d7de5a54)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 205562c (205562c7bd53b56994841b7fa64220207c83d3db)
Base parent: 69bccf0 (69bccf03c4733f57482f9691456efcd80f86a5f6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (205562c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=iffy rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.2%, 2.2%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 0.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.1%, 2.6%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.1%	[-6.1%, -6.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-1.0%, 2.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.5%, secondary 2.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.4%, 5.5%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	97
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	58
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	97

Bootstrap: 487.936s -> 488.617s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 406.49 MiB -> 406.80 MiB (0.08%)