[perf only] Test SimplifyCFG PhaseOrdering change

[nikic]

r? @ghost

[nikic]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ea61ff2ea6c862bc060922c7e321ddd927565e3a with merge 82934a5cd63964dd6e6efdd038765d7a4b41e1dd...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 82934a5cd63964dd6e6efdd038765d7a4b41e1dd (82934a5cd63964dd6e6efdd038765d7a4b41e1dd)

[rust-timer]

Queued 82934a5cd63964dd6e6efdd038765d7a4b41e1dd with parent 3b1fe7e, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (82934a5cd63964dd6e6efdd038765d7a4b41e1dd): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 2 relevant improvements 🎉 but 1 relevant regression 😿 to instruction counts.

• Arithmetic mean of relevant improvements: -1.0%
• Arithmetic mean of all relevant changes: 0.3%
• Largest improvement in instruction counts: -1.4% on full builds of inflate opt
• Largest regression in instruction counts: 2.9% on incr-patched: u8 3072 builds of issue-46449 opt

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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

[nikic]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b5c20cb with merge 814250d80bba4b74897e0f517d944934e2de7b7d...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 814250d80bba4b74897e0f517d944934e2de7b7d (814250d80bba4b74897e0f517d944934e2de7b7d)

[rust-timer]

Queued 814250d80bba4b74897e0f517d944934e2de7b7d with parent c42d846, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (814250d80bba4b74897e0f517d944934e2de7b7d): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 9 relevant improvements 🎉 but 5 relevant regressions 😿 to instruction counts.

• Arithmetic mean of relevant regressions: 4.0%
• Arithmetic mean of relevant improvements: -0.8%
• Arithmetic mean of all relevant changes: 0.9%
• Largest improvement in instruction counts: -1.0% on full builds of diesel check
• Largest regression in instruction counts: 6.9% on full builds of deeply-nested opt

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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