change FnMutDelegate to trait objects

[lcnr]

cc #100016 as mentioned in the last t-compiler meeting

r? @jackh726

[lcnr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 5669ce1 with merge cbad642839eed1ec09ba792a70269bef9fec4890...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cbad642839eed1ec09ba792a70269bef9fec4890 (cbad642839eed1ec09ba792a70269bef9fec4890)

[rust-timer]

Queued cbad642839eed1ec09ba792a70269bef9fec4890 with parent 294f0ee, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cbad642839eed1ec09ba792a70269bef9fec4890): 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)	0.7%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.2%, 2.3%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.5%, -1.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	7

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)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.2%	[-6.2%, -6.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.7%	[3.7%, 3.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-9.9%	[-9.9%, -9.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-9.9%	[-9.9%, -9.9%]	1

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[jackh726]

There is a slight regression in diesel benchmarks, mix in secondary, and a ~1.5% win in bootstrap times. I think this is worth merging.

[lcnr]

yeah, the regressions seem acceptable 👍

@bors r=jackh726 rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 5669ce1 has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5669ce1 with merge 48de123...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing 48de123 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (48de123): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.9%, 1.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1

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)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-3.2%, -1.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.2%, -1.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-3.2%, 0.9%]	7

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[4.9%, 5.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³