Don't catch overflow when running with cargo doc

[ouz-a]

Fixes #100991

r? @compiler-errors

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 5ab5ff28fddabfcfe6e9947d28bf305e35c3d961 with merge 0e7d1ccaf471feecaba9dbb903042f38824a6248...

[compiler-errors]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1f2f9f5c68d67be97bcad1084fdaf5fb0614e557 with merge c94e30c402e2d4bd6fd3fdeb4d26944e870c958e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c94e30c402e2d4bd6fd3fdeb4d26944e870c958e (c94e30c402e2d4bd6fd3fdeb4d26944e870c958e)

[rust-timer]

Queued c94e30c402e2d4bd6fd3fdeb4d26944e870c958e with parent 8a13871, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c94e30c402e2d4bd6fd3fdeb4d26944e870c958e): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.8%, -0.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.8%, -0.6%]	6

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)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²

[compiler-errors]

The primary results look like the opposite of the perf results in #100705, and the rest is probably noise given the nature of the changes in this PR. This is fine to me.

NOTE: For whoever is going to do perf triage on this PR, please also consider the results in tandem with those in #100705.

@ouz-a, can you squash this into one commit, then r=me.

@bors delegate+

[bors]

✌️ @ouz-a can now approve this pull request

[ouz-a]

r? @compiler-errors

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 36faf8f has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 36faf8f with merge c07a8b4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing c07a8b4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c07a8b4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.8%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 1.3%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.8%]	6

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)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.5%	[6.5%, 6.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1

Cycles

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

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²

[compiler-errors]

I think this may just be noise, as far as I can tell @ouz-a didn't change the code since the last time we ran perf ^

[rylev]

The primary regressions do seem like noise (as they are reversed in the next perf run), but the secondary regressions seem like sustained regressions.

GitHub does show a commit after the perf results so perhaps code was pushed by @ouz-a? However, the change is a single boolean check which makes this unlikely to be a real issue.

[rylev]

I'm going to mark this as triaged since the biggest regressions are noise. Given this is a small change and a needed fix, I don't think we need to address this.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged