[perf] Cache the canonical *instantiation* of param-envs

[compiler-errors]

r? lcnr

[compiler-errors]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 10849bc with merge 41eb046…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 41eb046 (41eb046262521d4f258e161c937b19a16cb53f37)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (41eb046): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	18
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-20.1%, -0.1%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	18

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -7.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -0.8%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.8%	[-14.1%, -1.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.1%, -0.8%]	8

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 755.415s -> 752.897s (-0.33%)
Artifact size: 372.14 MiB -> 372.01 MiB (-0.04%)

[compiler-errors]

Let's try this again w/o the "highest var in clauses" optimization.

[compiler-errors]

Let's try this but with highest_var_in_clauses not cached.

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit a74d247 with merge 98d94a4…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 98d94a4 (98d94a4710e69795b88dc65dc9526c47d10f54d6, parent: e703dff8fe220b78195c53478e83fb2f68d8499c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (98d94a4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.6%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	13
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-15.9%, -0.1%]	24
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.6%, 0.6%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-8.1%	[-8.1%, -8.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-8.1%, 1.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -7.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.1%	[-12.2%, -2.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 754.802s -> 754.047s (-0.10%)
Artifact size: 372.09 MiB -> 372.03 MiB (-0.02%)

[lcnr]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 04a2eec has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 04a2eec with merge 9c4ff56...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 9c4ff56 to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 3b97f13 (parent) -> 9c4ff56 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 9c4ff566babe632af5e30281a822d1ae9972873b --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-aarch64-apple: 5323.3s -> 6854.4s (28.8%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 7624.1s -> 9805.2s (28.6%)
3. dist-apple-various: 6454.6s -> 7948.7s (23.1%)
4. mingw-check-1: 1565.7s -> 1817.4s (16.1%)
5. x86_64-apple-2: 4178.7s -> 4777.1s (14.3%)
6. aarch64-apple: 4556.7s -> 5114.6s (12.2%)
7. i686-gnu-2: 5490.2s -> 6143.2s (11.9%)
8. x86_64-gnu-tools: 3301.1s -> 3636.1s (10.1%)
9. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 7157.6s -> 7862.6s (9.8%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3303.8s -> 3626.5s (9.8%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9c4ff56): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.9%, -0.6%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.0%	[-20.3%, -0.6%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.9%, -0.6%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary 2.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[0.9%, 3.5%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[1.1%, 6.0%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[0.9%, 3.5%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -7.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.4%	[-14.4%, -2.2%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 693.577s -> 692.606s (-0.14%)
Artifact size: 371.92 MiB -> 372.01 MiB (0.02%)