[Jamesbarford]

Foray into seeing if having an interned set per TypeKind is a good idea.

This is an experiment to see if the idea is worth pursuing. I have used Codex with 6.1 to generate all of the code. I am not putting this up for human review in it's present state and should not be seen as reflective of anything more than a prototype

r? ghost

[Jamesbarford]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3ece7c9 (3ece7c92ed2628bb854854c5975ef06c52aebcb6)
Base parent: 96a18bf (96a18bf5ffa2b24f9cf3d1c731a9eb121c1acad9)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3ece7c9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	90
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-2.8%, -0.0%]	123
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.9%, 0.9%]	91

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.9%, secondary 1.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.0%	[1.2%, 10.3%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.3%, -2.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-4.6%, -1.5%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.3%, -2.6%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary -4.2%, secondary -1.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[2.7%, 6.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-4.3%, -4.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-8.0%, -2.1%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-4.3%, -4.1%]	2

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 487.353s -> 486.755s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 406.68 MiB -> 407.04 MiB (0.09%)

[Jamesbarford]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 956b4b1 (956b4b18b7c010a869e3fab9ead670175d3362a6)
Base parent: 4c46afa (4c46afa63688fb473618f9b3553d70b0c15a88eb)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (956b4b1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	69
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-2.3%, -0.0%]	70
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	69

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.3%, secondary 1.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.9%	[2.2%, 8.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.6%	[-9.7%, -2.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -1.4%, secondary -2.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.4%	[4.8%, 6.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-3.2%, -2.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-6.1%, -2.7%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-3.2%, 2.1%]	4

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 488.585s -> 481.594s (-1.43%)
Artifact size: 406.53 MiB -> 406.72 MiB (0.05%)

[Jamesbarford]

... This has proved to me it is worth exploring. Closing and going to implement properly