[experiment] How expensive is if_cause?

[compiler-errors]

TODO

r? @ghost

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit bce9c6d with merge aa2e738...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: aa2e738 (aa2e73810fb1f33222bf3f89241008ff425e0900)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (aa2e738): 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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	18
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	30
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, 0.2%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.6%)

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)	3.6%	[1.8%, 4.7%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary 1.2%, secondary 2.2%)

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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[1.9%, 2.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 780.203s -> 781.608s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 366.14 MiB -> 366.17 MiB (0.01%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4f520ff with merge a62fc50...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a62fc50 (a62fc50b127d7d867961605c5b0f92b81946c6b7)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a62fc50): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[0.3%, 2.4%]	226
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.2%, 3.8%]	167
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[0.3%, 2.4%]	226

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[1.3%, 5.5%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-4.1%, -2.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary 2.4%)

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%	[0.8%, 1.6%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[1.5%, 4.0%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.8%, 1.6%]	9

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 780.069s -> 780.476s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 366.22 MiB -> 366.14 MiB (-0.02%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 847c7b6 with merge 60f37a0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 60f37a0 (60f37a08442c52a8a6121501e92be3bc388310c7)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (60f37a0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary 0.8%)

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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 782.988s -> 784.316s (0.17%)
Artifact size: 366.24 MiB -> 366.23 MiB (-0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a999dda with merge 1f6a188...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1f6a188 (1f6a188f0ca859d64fbc3c23fe807f2a11134554)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1f6a188): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.1%)

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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 0.4%)

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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 781.425s -> 781.022s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 365.92 MiB -> 365.91 MiB (-0.00%)