Skip codegen_crate call in check mode

[bjorn3]

This way we don't have to spawn the coordinator thread. Some errors will no longer be emitted with this in check mode. For example the check that -Ctarget-cpu is passed on targets that need this.

Suggested by @saethlin

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa

cc @WaffleLapkin

[rustbot]

r? @madsmtm

rustbot has assigned @madsmtm.
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

[bjorn3]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3eae4c9 (3eae4c9d8d83d9f1eda6239b5443ae80fa3d06bd, parent: 11d2046fe9962720558cb15f72541f7fd170dec9)

[scottmcm]

Some errors will no longer be emitted with this in check mode.

Sounds allowed by https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3477-cargo-check-lang-policy.html, so no issue so long as it's not skipping anything that would be needed particularly often.

(Not reporting things that'll be reported for any full build, like missing flags for a target, seems totally fine to me. That wouldn't be part of the core inner dev loop where check is most important.)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3eae4c9): 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)	-0.9%	[-1.4%, -0.7%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.3%, -0.2%]	21
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.4%, -0.7%]	5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.7%, secondary -3.5%)

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)	-1.7%	[-2.1%, -1.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-4.4%, -2.7%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-2.1%, -1.3%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.2%)

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)	-2.2%	[-2.4%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary -0.0%)

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)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 474.995s -> 475.128s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 390.51 MiB -> 390.45 MiB (-0.02%)

[bjorn3]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

To check how perf.rust-lang.org handles the change in timers.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 1d990a0 (1d990a02a84d5e04783da0e318563db26401bc48, parent: 75948c8bb3bd37f1e8ee20273a04edea4c1f84f8)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1d990a0): 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)	-0.9%	[-1.0%, -0.9%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	29
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.0%, -0.9%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.1%)

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)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-2.2%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.7%)

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 474.959s -> 474.684s (-0.06%)
Artifact size: 390.49 MiB -> 390.51 MiB (0.01%)