Remove SpecOptionPartialEq

[clubby789]

With the recent LLVM bump, the specialization for Option::partial_eq on types with niches is no longer necessary. I kept the manual implementation as it still gives us better codegen than the derive (will look at this seperately).

Also implemented PartialOrd/Ord by hand as it somewhat improves codegen for #49892: https://godbolt.org/z/vx5Y6oW4Y

[rustbot]

r? @jhpratt

rustbot has assigned @jhpratt.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

(are there codegen tests for this?)

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 36e048a with merge ce32709...

[clubby789]

tests/codegen/option-niche-eq.rs tests this (or at least the motivating case for types with niches). I also moved the cmp::Ordering assembly test into codegen as the assumes are now eliminated and the IR comes out neatly

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ce32709 (ce32709184fed395b63a378c57e927ac4192ed41)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ce32709): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	2

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)	3.0%	[0.8%, 6.0%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[2.1%, 6.1%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.6%	[-7.1%, -0.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-7.1%, 6.0%]	5

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	40
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.3%]	47

Bootstrap: 643.644s -> 644.067s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 175.01 MiB -> 175.01 MiB (-0.00%)

[jhpratt]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 36e048a has been approved by jhpratt

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 36e048a with merge 69d58cd...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[clubby789]

@rustbot author

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8e43732 with merge bdd82a7...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[clubby789]

Since I made the PR, this seems to have stopped working 😕 Rebasing onto master makes this fail locally - I think there's been a change in the pre-optimized IR emitted.
@bors r-

[clubby789]

@rustbot ready
Spelling out the match directly without a wildcard makes the opt work again in LLVM 18

[jhpratt]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f8fd23a has been approved by jhpratt

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[scottmcm]

Yay! So nice to have codegen tests that let people try removing hacks like this once they're no longer needed 🙂

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f8fd23a with merge cdb683f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jhpratt
Pushing cdb683f to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cdb683f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.9%	[4.0%, 5.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.6%	[-5.6%, -5.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-5.6%, 5.8%]	3

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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Binary size

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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.6%, -0.0%]	45
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.6%, 0.4%]	48

Bootstrap: 671.782s -> 667.777s (-0.60%)
Artifact size: 315.01 MiB -> 315.07 MiB (0.02%)