Remove eval_always from check_private_in_public.

[cjgillot]

No description provided.

[rustbot]

r? @WaffleLapkin

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

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9a97744 with merge 812ab76...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 812ab76 (812ab768194c21ae867bde408151983b4f228327)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (812ab76): 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)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.8%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	29

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)	1.5%	[1.2%, 1.8%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.2%, -2.4%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.2%, 1.8%]	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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 627.128s -> 628.596s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 273.31 MiB -> 273.30 MiB (-0.00%)

[asquared31415]

The perf data looks odd to me, a significant portion of the regressions, including all of the regressions above 1%, have a seemingly spurious downwards spike at the very end of the 30 day graph of similar magnitude to the reported increase for each of those tests.

edit: That may not be spurious improvements, the previous commit was a PR that was expected to have performance improvements. I'm still not convinced that this change should have completely undone them though.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1da8198 with merge cba27a0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cba27a0 (cba27a05c3d7a5f0ce190594f875d21511b1d732)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cba27a0): 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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	21

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 620.955s -> 621.494s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 271.99 MiB -> 272.04 MiB (0.02%)

[petrochenkov]

The second comment's name suggests that it might have some intersection with #113671, but apparently it does not.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #135272) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[petrochenkov]

Status is not very clear, still waiting on author.
@cjgillot Do you plan to work on completing it this year?

[petrochenkov]

Closing due to inactivity.