Rollup of 6 pull requests

[matthiaskrgr]

Successful merges:

• Support true and false as boolean flag params #107043 (Support true and false as boolean flag params)
• Query refactoring #107831 (Query refactoring)
• Handled snap curl issue inside Rust #107841 (Handled snap curl issue inside Rust)
• rustdoc: remove unused fn parameter tab #107852 (rustdoc: remove unused fn parameter tab)
• Sync release notes for 1.67.1 #107861 (Sync release notes for 1.67.1)
• Allow multiple candidates with same response in new solver #107863 (Allow multiple candidates with same response in new solver)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=6

[bors]

📌 Commit 9300617 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 9300617 with merge 9b8dbd5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing 9b8dbd5 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Perf Build Sha
#107863	5677b86c43cf70b41403958c90e2ade33123b6b3
#107861	d8afa051155387eeed7a115b9ab890a9fcdc6fc8
#107852	832a0c2e1ef6280bd7a545600fb6b76bcea4965c
#107841	e3f76e762eac9c0d81533d9fcecc9a487506800b
#107831	33084aaad8826feab0d8bbf0af5ef8c7bb416767
#107043	d0a98bb3e1f4620738a06d705765b266473c81e1

previous master: a697573463

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 (9b8dbd5): 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.5%, 1.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.5%, 1.0%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-3.4%, -2.5%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1

[rylev]

@rust-timer build 5677b86c43cf70b41403958c90e2ade33123b6b3

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5677b86c43cf70b41403958c90e2ade33123b6b3): 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-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

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[rylev]

@rust-timer build 33084aaad8826feab0d8bbf0af5ef8c7bb416767

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (33084aaad8826feab0d8bbf0af5ef8c7bb416767): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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-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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.0%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[rylev]

It seems like #107831 is the cause of the regression cc @nnethercote @oli-obk

[oli-obk]

Looking at the graph, I think there is no regression here. This looks like a reversal of the "improvement" in https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=9433ba63942a736f068baacf19e5cffaff6dccc9&end=ef934d9b632b8ac00276558824664c104b92b5f0&stat=instructions:u

[nnethercote]

The wg-grammar change is very likely noise. The bitmaps change I am less certain about. Although I wouldn't have expected this change to affect perf, I will do some local measurements to see if I can work anything out.

[nnethercote]

I did some local measurements with Cachegrind, starting with the current trunk and then de-applying the four commits from #107831 one at a time:

Original    2,579,711,048 (100.0%)  PROGRAM TOTALS
MinusQ4     2,579,711,451 (100.0%)  PROGRAM TOTALS
MinusQ3     2,579,646,820 (100.0%)  PROGRAM TOTALS
MinusQ2     2,579,439,041 (100.0%)  PROGRAM TOTALS
MinusQ1     2,579,437,639 (100.0%)  PROGRAM TOTALS

That's a 0.02% reduction in instruction counts by de-applying the four commits, i.e. negligible. Which strongly suggests that #107831 didn't have any meaningful perf effects.

[rylev]

@rustbot label: perf-regression-triaged