[Jules-Bertholet]

(Edit: wrong) The tiniest change will stop spec_extend from being inlined and break this test. Ran into this with #164014, #163494, and now #165060, none of which even touch the code in question directly.

Wait, this seems to be triggered by rust.debug????

[rustbot]

r? @mejrs

rustbot has assigned @mejrs.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 77 candidates
• Random selection from 20 candidates

[Jules-Bertholet]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 5bafe5c (5bafe5cb6dde631a24edae3fda0671363af1ebb3)
Base parent: 41089d0 (41089d07a0a2afc16adfe28a760d94d73d7298a4)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5bafe5c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary -3.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.6%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-4.9%, -0.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-3.7%, -3.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-4.9%, 0.6%]	11

Cycles

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary -2.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.6%, 1.7%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.5%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-3.8%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-1.5%, 1.7%]	16

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	3

Bootstrap: 490.666s -> 487.72s (-0.60%)
Artifact size: 405.86 MiB -> 406.17 MiB (0.08%)

[Jules-Bertholet]

This is actually due to overflow-checks