Only encode constness for items that may conditionally be const

[compiler-errors]

r? @ghost

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 74ec77ea0f7bba8d2b17770b47c90b71b3b95456 with merge af025d85b7e1dcc7f8ff5741c8bc4a38c4da73b4...

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f007d6a with merge 1d8b099c82d0eba87738a42bae5b62b488a69c30...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1d8b099c82d0eba87738a42bae5b62b488a69c30 (1d8b099c82d0eba87738a42bae5b62b488a69c30)

[rust-timer]

Queued 1d8b099c82d0eba87738a42bae5b62b488a69c30 with parent 4b8f431, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1d8b099c82d0eba87738a42bae5b62b488a69c30): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0aa06c975b083fda15d98d5a01742c395fd3109c with merge 963ee0810ed9817ccaa498ac104fd535c1897a3d...

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 6868a10 with merge f44a2646472c3d9b34077e4f006df9f6ef0fa6d7...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job dist-x86_64-linux failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

   Compiling rustc_query_impl v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_query_impl)
   Compiling rustc_passes v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_passes)
   Compiling rustc_monomorphize v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_monomorphize)
   Compiling rustc_save_analysis v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_save_analysis)
error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `rustc_hir::def::DefKind::Trait` and `rustc_hir::def::DefKind::AssocTy` not covered
    --> compiler/rustc_metadata/src/rmeta/encoder.rs:1063:11
1063 |     match def_kind {
1063 |     match def_kind {
     |           ^^^^^^^^ patterns `rustc_hir::def::DefKind::Trait` and `rustc_hir::def::DefKind::AssocTy` not covered
note: `rustc_hir::def::DefKind` defined here
     = note: the matched value is of type `rustc_hir::def::DefKind`
     = note: the matched value is of type `rustc_hir::def::DefKind`
help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern, a match arm with multiple or-patterns as shown, or multiple match arms
1094 ~         | DefKind::InlineConst => false,
1094 ~         | DefKind::InlineConst => false,
1095 ~         rustc_hir::def::DefKind::Trait | rustc_hir::def::DefKind::AssocTy => todo!(),

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0004`.
[RUSTC-TIMING] rustc_metadata test:false 1.788
error: could not compile `rustc_metadata` due to previous error

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f44a2646472c3d9b34077e4f006df9f6ef0fa6d7 (f44a2646472c3d9b34077e4f006df9f6ef0fa6d7)

[rust-timer]

Queued f44a2646472c3d9b34077e4f006df9f6ef0fa6d7 with parent 57781b2, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f44a2646472c3d9b34077e4f006df9f6ef0fa6d7): 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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-1.1%, -0.1%]	7
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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	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