Make overlapping_impls not generic

[camsteffen]

Trying to win back perf from #101632.

[rust-highfive]

r? @estebank

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[camsteffen]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 890604d513b63932410aa0540ac018fbc6a8a483 with merge c6f1f1a586c74317beb8604d1e8196c41203bc9d...

[camsteffen]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 03c538da881a1231cf3f2d4528b109d9a24a03aa with merge 72c5a74962948aa4ef28312989e91fd1ddbcbdc1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 72c5a74962948aa4ef28312989e91fd1ddbcbdc1 (72c5a74962948aa4ef28312989e91fd1ddbcbdc1)

[rust-timer]

Queued 72c5a74962948aa4ef28312989e91fd1ddbcbdc1 with parent db0597f, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (72c5a74962948aa4ef28312989e91fd1ddbcbdc1): 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)	0.8%	[0.6%, 0.9%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-2.3%, -1.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-2.3%, 0.9%]	13

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)	3.2%	[3.1%, 3.6%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.7%, 3.9%]	49
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[-2.4%, 3.6%]	7

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)	2.6%	[2.1%, 3.7%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[3.4%, 5.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.1%, 3.7%]	7

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[estebank]

I'm inclined to merge as is, but the bootstrap timings are all red :-/

[camsteffen]

I'll take a closer look at this when I can. Ooh I hadn't noticed the bootstrap times 😤. I also need to fix the doc comment on the function if nothing else.

[lqd]

(Note that the diesel regressions are likely noise)

[camsteffen]

Could the bootstrap times also be an anomaly? Maybe run perf again to see?

[lqd]

It's possible, maybe unlikely, but bootstrap has some variance indeed. But sure, we can run it again and check. It won't hurt and the queue is empty.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 03c538da881a1231cf3f2d4528b109d9a24a03aa with merge ca24e8e6411a3b12836e973fb7772b4c5fe67d28...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ca24e8e6411a3b12836e973fb7772b4c5fe67d28 (ca24e8e6411a3b12836e973fb7772b4c5fe67d28)

[rust-timer]

Queued ca24e8e6411a3b12836e973fb7772b4c5fe67d28 with parent fa0ca78, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ca24e8e6411a3b12836e973fb7772b4c5fe67d28): 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-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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.2%, -1.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.2%, -1.1%]	7

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)	-7.8%	[-7.8%, -7.8%]	1
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)	2.9%	[2.7%, 3.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.6%, -2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.0%, -3.8%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-3.6%, 3.1%]	4

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[lqd]

Looking good.

[camsteffen]

Okay, fixed the doc comment. Should be good to go!

[cjgillot]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit c4068c7 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c4068c7 with merge 75dbd5b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing 75dbd5b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (75dbd5b): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.3%, -1.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.3%, -1.1%]	7

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)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.9%, 4.4%]	31
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1

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)	2.8%	[2.1%, 4.1%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[4.6%, 5.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.4%, -2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-3.4%, 4.1%]	6

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[nnethercote]

bitmaps improvements are as expected and outweigh the reported regressions on secondary benchmarks, which might just be noise anyway.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged