Don't grab variances in TypeRelating relation if we're invariant

[compiler-errors]

Since Invariant.xform(var) = Invariant always, so just copy what the generalizer relation does.

Fixes #110106

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

Type relation code was changed

cc @compiler-errors, @lcnr

[compiler-errors]

r? types

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit cb7c9cc with merge b4af5d3...

[matthiaskrgr]

test? :3

[compiler-errors]

@bors try

[matthiaskrgr]

:D thanks

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 003b920 with merge 0d1a7a6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0d1a7a6 (0d1a7a61cfc7888b02654021b7e17531d87aedfc)

[compiler-errors]

@rust-timer build 0d1a7a6

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0d1a7a6): 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)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.3%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, 2.9%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	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)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 651.67s -> 651.019s (-0.10%)
Artifact size: 311.10 MiB -> 311.21 MiB (0.03%)

[compiler-errors]

Oh cool, so this fixes most of the regressions. The syn benchmark regression looks noisy.

[aliemjay]

r? aliemjay
@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 003b920 has been approved by aliemjay

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 003b920 with merge 2e3581b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: aliemjay
Pushing 2e3581b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2e3581b): 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	11

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)	5.8%	[5.8%, 5.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.8%	[5.8%, 5.8%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 653.837s -> 652.002s (-0.28%)
Artifact size: 175.50 MiB -> 175.52 MiB (0.01%)

[lqd]

The ucd benchmark looked noisy in the last couple PRs. I'll wait a bit to see if it returns to steady-state before marking this triaged.

[lqd]

Let's see what weekly triage also think, but to me it looks noisy: by now it's back to close to the level preceding this PR.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I think it's probably a new baseline? Zooming in a bit:

But I think it's fairly minor and in incr-unchanged, so I'm inclined to mark as triaged.