Run SimplifyCfg after SimplifyLocals

[saethlin]

SimplifyLocals can create goto chains by deleting all the statements in a block with a goto terminator. Moving the final SimplifyCfg after SimplifyLocals ensures these blocks are completely deleted.

As far as I can tell, this is the primary cause of the MIR changes in #106550 (comment), because I sloppily added a new SimplifyCfg around this position.

Locally, this fails an incremental compilation test, but I have no idea how that is possible. Let's see what CI and perf say...

r? @ghost

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2e4390a7745bafe811ac7c981b252b17d18e3e1f with merge ba104a8e01405b75ce54b7092372df2660c33ec9...

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #105323) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ba104a8e01405b75ce54b7092372df2660c33ec9 (ba104a8e01405b75ce54b7092372df2660c33ec9)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ba104a8e01405b75ce54b7092372df2660c33ec9): 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-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)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.8%, 1.7%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	7.0%	[1.0%, 10.7%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.1%, -1.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[-2.1%, 10.7%]	5

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)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit c32c65a with merge 1964e3e121698639804ce5ec27d66cd6e23c4a1e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1964e3e121698639804ce5ec27d66cd6e23c4a1e (1964e3e121698639804ce5ec27d66cd6e23c4a1e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1964e3e121698639804ce5ec27d66cd6e23c4a1e): 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-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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.0%, 2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.3%, -0.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-1.3%, 4.3%]	4

Cycles

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