interpret: always enable write_immediate sanity checks

[RalfJung]

Writing a wrongly-sized scalar somewhere can have quite confusing effects. Let's see how expensive it is to catch this early.

[rustbot]

r? @cjgillot

rustbot has assigned @cjgillot.
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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

[RalfJung]

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit fe181de with merge e81d217...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e81d217 (e81d2175e4b13457b1059e420c5eaf564773fc4f)

[RalfJung]

Let's try changing only one of them...

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7f48538 with merge c93cba0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c93cba0 (c93cba0482edd9e4687b5b6e2d141910465688d7)

[RalfJung]

Seems like that one is actually the more expensive one.

[RalfJung]

Let's see if this other way of checking the "critical" path works.

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[RalfJung]

Well, seems like this is all we get.

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7caf2cd with merge b4d7387...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b4d7387 (b4d7387d95218ebdb881883b945692e5b6e54735)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b4d7387): 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-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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.9%, secondary 4.2%)

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)	2.9%	[1.2%, 4.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.9%	[1.2%, 4.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.0%)

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-8.1%	[-8.1%, -8.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 768.244s -> 769.825s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 341.41 MiB -> 341.34 MiB (-0.02%)

[RalfJung]

These are fairly small regressions, and only in secondary benchmarks, so maybe that's okay?

[saethlin]

I think the overhead is acceptable for some better checks.

[RalfJung]

@saethlin is that an "r=me"?

[saethlin]

It was not, because I hadn't looked at the diff. But I have now!

@bors r=saethlin

[bors]

📌 Commit 7caf2cd has been approved by saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7caf2cd with merge 9c7013c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: saethlin
Pushing 9c7013c to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9c7013c): 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 2.3%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.9%)

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-3.9%, -3.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 771.411s -> 772.337s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 341.87 MiB -> 341.90 MiB (0.01%)

[rylev]

The perf regressions were deemed acceptable here.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged