Shrink PredicateS

[nnethercote]

r? @ghost

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 79db32b with merge acf55a9324511b85d3cbd0513ccec7eee1b9cc05...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: acf55a9324511b85d3cbd0513ccec7eee1b9cc05 (acf55a9324511b85d3cbd0513ccec7eee1b9cc05)

[rust-timer]

Queued acf55a9324511b85d3cbd0513ccec7eee1b9cc05 with parent 9358d09, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (acf55a9324511b85d3cbd0513ccec7eee1b9cc05): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.7%, -0.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.7%, -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.3%, -0.8%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-3.8%, -1.7%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.3%, -0.8%]	5

Cycles

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

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²

[nnethercote]

Perf improvements (instructions and max-rss) clearly outweight the regressions here.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[nnethercote]

Enough performance goodness here for it to be worthwhile, I think.

r? @lcnr

[lcnr]

r=me after you've dealt with my comment ^^

[nnethercote]

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit 79db32b has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 79db32b with merge a938f5a34b4095372f0d0fc8e7eaaa16e0529315...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job dist-i686-mingw failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[lqd]

@bors retry spurious network error on dist-i686-mingw

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 79db32b with merge a28bd61a91234640010ca6ec9a2528163118da44...

[Dylan-DPC]

@bors p=1001
(using this pr to notify if github issue still persists)

[Dylan-DPC]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 79db32b with merge a4d0341...

[Dylan-DPC]

github seems fine now opening tree but observing this if it runs into it again:
@bors treeclosed--

[notriddle]

One minus sign, not two:

@bors treeclosed-

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing a4d0341 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a4d0341): 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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.9%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.5%, 0.9%]	11

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.9%, -0.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[nnethercote]

The supposed regressions are mostly html5ever and keccak, which have been bimodal and noisy lately.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged