Hash spans when interning types

[cjgillot]

Ignoring hash for spans creates an inconsistency between the Hash impl for WithStableHash, which takes them into account, and the HashStable impl which does not.

cc @compiler-errors

Fixes #104271
Fixes #104255
Fixes #104238

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9d86e6a with merge e61cbcb92683ffeda9b60e87f8e73f0c4ac0456c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e61cbcb92683ffeda9b60e87f8e73f0c4ac0456c (e61cbcb92683ffeda9b60e87f8e73f0c4ac0456c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e61cbcb92683ffeda9b60e87f8e73f0c4ac0456c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 2.4%]	88
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[0.2%, 9.0%]	64
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 2.4%]	88

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.9%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[1.3%, 3.6%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 1.9%]	12

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[0.9%, 3.8%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[1.2%, 9.4%]	27
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[0.9%, 3.8%]	11

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ba46b68 with merge 169da0ee88c495f5d40f40a97840a6640d59ed70...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 169da0ee88c495f5d40f40a97840a6640d59ed70 (169da0ee88c495f5d40f40a97840a6640d59ed70)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (169da0ee88c495f5d40f40a97840a6640d59ed70): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	39
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.1%]	26
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	39

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.4%, 2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

[cjgillot]

This is an incremental correctness test for information that should have been hashed but was not. 1% regression should be acceptable.

[compiler-errors]

I agree that this regression, while unfortunate, is acceptable for correctness.

r? @compiler-errors @bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit ba46b68 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ba46b68 with merge 3be81dd...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 3be81dd to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3be81dd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	44
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	19
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	44

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.6%	[4.1%, 9.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-3.1%, -2.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[nnethercote]

Regressions are all in incremental builds, and are necessary for correctness.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged