Rollup of 5 pull requests

[workingjubilee]

Successful merges:

• Improve diagnostic output of non_local_definitions lint #125089 (Improve diagnostic output of non_local_definitions lint)
• -Znext-solver: eagerly normalize when adding goals #125343 (-Znext-solver: eagerly normalize when adding goals)
• Stabilise IpvNAddr::{BITS, to_bits, from_bits} (ip_bits) #125551 (Stabilise IpvNAddr::{BITS, to_bits, from_bits} (ip_bits))
• Don't suggest turning non-char-literal exprs of ty char into string literals #125640 (Don't suggest turning non-char-literal exprs of ty char into string literals)
• update tracking issue for lazy_cell_consume #125647 (update tracking issue for lazy_cell_consume)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[workingjubilee]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

[bors]

📌 Commit 4aaf9f6 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 4aaf9f6 with merge f989d2f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: workingjubilee
Pushing f989d2f to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#125089	Improve diagnostic output the non_local_definitions lint	6f02344996aef2d4e34cb4ff59cf853f3513c132 (link)
#125343	-Znext-solver: eagerly normalize when adding goals	7e8b50b1f3e77b28e0bbd7b713bbf0db2bc2a99e (link)
#125551	Stabilise IpvNAddr::{BITS, to_bits, from_bits} (ip_bits)	73a6e50d55ca80cd4238d901c40ff889186358d7 (link)
#125640	Don't suggest turning non-char-literal exprs of ty char i…	5b7e1ea250b15f162086942030aeb25ee58e5690 (link)
#125647	update tracking issue for lazy_cell_consume	46397ae9b0be5aad4d9df416e5317b307140e2ca (link)

previous master: c0d600385b

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 (f989d2f): 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)	1.3%	[0.5%, 2.1%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[-0.1%, 2.1%]	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%)

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)	2.4%	[2.2%, 2.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[2.2%, 2.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 1.5%)

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)	1.5%	[1.4%, 1.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.4%, 1.6%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 668.358s -> 669.563s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 318.16 MiB -> 318.39 MiB (0.07%)

[workingjubilee]

uhhh

@rust-timer build 7e8b50b

[lqd]

Probably #125089

[workingjubilee]

oh probably.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7e8b50b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.8%]	26
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary -3.2%)

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)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	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: 668.358s -> 669.315s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 318.16 MiB -> 318.25 MiB (0.03%)

[lqd]

Is this noise 👨 🫴 🦋, none of these regressions showed up in the initial perf report, and the PR is supposed to be new-solver only. Maybe the other PRs are improvements...

Oh but this is the lint that uses the new solver IIRC, it's not clear why helloworld would be impacted but let's see: @rust-timer build 6f02344

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6f02344): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

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)	1.3%	[0.4%, 2.1%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[-0.2%, 2.1%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%)

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)	2.4%	[2.1%, 2.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[2.1%, 2.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 1.4%)

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)	1.4%	[1.3%, 1.6%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[1.3%, 1.6%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 668.358s -> 670.93s (0.38%)
Artifact size: 318.16 MiB -> 318.32 MiB (0.05%)

[lqd]

Right, that's more like the previous results.

[workingjubilee]

cc @Urgau perf regression in your PR unforch

[Urgau]

Right, I think it's the same kind of perf regression as when the non_local_definitions lint was introduced, #120393 (comment).

The lint triggers nearly 150 times in the version of diesel used by rustc-perf, so the benchmark has become a bit a linting machinery benchmark, and since #125089 is making some big changes to the diagnostic output, that probably explain why there is some perf regression.

I would consider this to be a false alarm. cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1819

[pnkfelix]

I agree with @Urgau 's analysis; the benchmark has become a linting machinery benchmark, and T-compiler really should decide what it wants out of such a scenario...

... but that debate can be continued on rust-lang/rustc-perf#1819.

marking as triaged.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged