Panic directly in Arguments::new* instead of recursing

[saethlin]

This has been bothering me because it looks very silly in MIR.

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ca211ea with merge 3f1c95e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3f1c95e (3f1c95e7f80cf85417b044bf9e22fccc8e8da9fa)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3f1c95e): 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-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)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.7%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.4%, 0.7%]	5

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)	1.0%	[0.5%, 3.3%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[0.8%, 3.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-8.0%, -0.0%]	16
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-8.0%, 3.3%]	24

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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.0%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.0%, 0.4%]	5

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 1.6%]	30
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	18
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, -0.0%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.3%, 1.6%]	48

Bootstrap: 674.031s -> 673.733s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 311.12 MiB -> 311.18 MiB (0.02%)

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 28561aa with merge 2d12f93...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2d12f93 (2d12f936c6b3cc86f816bc3447e7a5a79bbbcff3)

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 84a3671 with merge 7121f46...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7121f46 (7121f46349015d3a65d1186e0977f1b80253343f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7121f46): 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-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%, 0.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.0%, -0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-1.0%, 0.9%]	5

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)	7.4%	[3.2%, 11.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.7%	[-7.4%, -3.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.6%, -1.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-7.4%, 11.6%]	5

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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.0%, 0.8%]	2

Binary size

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, -0.0%]	26
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, -0.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, 0.6%]	35

Bootstrap: 668.884s -> 667.893s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 318.05 MiB -> 318.07 MiB (0.01%)

[saethlin]

r? m-ou-se