Rollup of 15 pull requests

[matthiaskrgr]

Successful merges:

• linker: Update some outdated comments #99993 (linker: Update some outdated comments)
• Properly forward ByRefSized::fold to the inner iterator #100220 (Properly forward ByRefSized::fold to the inner iterator)
• sugg: take into count the debug formatting #100826 (sugg: take into count the debug formatting)
• Extra documentation for new formatting feature #100855 (Extra documentation for new formatting feature)
• Coherence negative impls implied bounds #100888 (Coherence negative impls implied bounds)
• Make some methods private #100901 (Make some methods private)
• Suggest alternatives when trying to mutate a HashMap/BTreeMap via indexing #100906 (Suggest alternatives when trying to mutate a HashMap/BTreeMap via indexing)
• Diagnose missing includes in run-make tests #100912 (Diagnose missing includes in run-make tests)
• Use par_body_owners for liveness #100919 (Use par_body_owners for liveness)
• Rewrite error index generator to greatly reduce the size of the pages #100922 (Rewrite error index generator to greatly reduce the size of the pages)
• Update README.md #100926 (Update README.md)
• Use --userns=keep-id when "docker" is really podman #100930 (Use --userns=keep-id when "docker" is really podman)
• rustdoc: remove unused CSS rule #100938 (rustdoc: remove unused CSS rule)
• Do not suggest adding a bound to a opaque type #100940 (Do not suggest adding a bound to a opaque type)
• Add a missing test case for impl generic mismatch #100945 (Add a missing test case for impl generic mismatch)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=15

[bors]

📌 Commit fb88e25 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit fb88e25 with merge addacb5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing addacb5 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Perf Build Sha
#100945	d0005c59843775599e4c671f5c3da539bc726a2a
#100940	b3831124c550086921a740f6a1354005a92aa27f
#100938	f8b60e74c6bda3d37dbdd8f5ed8d92859591ba5c
#100930	010328aa3cafd06c97982e07ec477ae3ba4d84ce
#100926	fa91d8555c559afbbc7bca9c59a4424590001044
#100922	97ab75ae05bf538cba044675828095d92cf3f940
#100919	033278a473c88569bc78fcd0384c2b457c520a96
#100912	5d0bda41fc8f5f8abe9b093d3fdd8ad431c77a32
#100906	63bc8d0b213af6e9fc0534764e7a20081480dce0
#100901	f9cfcecd1456375afb2260d76e908023c9ff9fa5
#100888	1339109f685c89ce8e12a9b5fd44f0ad4057504f
#100855	55356f08e13e1d1cef0bf96b5e8ae407db81cbab
#100826	f811738222a3d81e38a5e383baeff498c840658e
#100220	984733779f9dfe6044cdcb5483897bfd63dd9d54
#99993	5282366b603eae34864e4b07c4e941633597234b

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (addacb5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.8%, 0.3%]	11

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[rylev]

I looked for something obvious that might be causing this, and I couldn't find anything promising. It seems there are some PRs that are very likely not the cause. We can start by testing the others to see if they yield results.

@rust-timer build 1339109f685c89ce8e12a9b5fd44f0ad4057504f

[rust-timer]

Queued 1339109f685c89ce8e12a9b5fd44f0ad4057504f with parent ebfc7aa, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1339109f685c89ce8e12a9b5fd44f0ad4057504f): 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Warning ⚠: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

• rustc

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.9%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[rylev]

@rust-timer build 033278a473c88569bc78fcd0384c2b457c520a96

[rust-timer]

Queued 033278a473c88569bc78fcd0384c2b457c520a96 with parent ebfc7aa, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (033278a473c88569bc78fcd0384c2b457c520a96): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.8%, 0.3%]	12

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-4.5%, -4.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[3.5%, 3.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.6%, -2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.9%, -2.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.6%, -2.3%]	2

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[rylev]

@sanxiyn @oli-obk Seems like the majority of perf changes are coming from #100919. These changes are largely neutral overall, but I wanted to make sure you're aware.