Fast-path some binder relations

[compiler-errors]

A simpler approach than #104598

Fixes #104583

r? types

[compiler-errors]

This should come back with no results or just noise, but just checking

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit bc38fb773ceb25cabc71eb6208851d6ae497058f with merge fdaf42429e363c2a506d6f07a245113ace957519...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fdaf42429e363c2a506d6f07a245113ace957519 (fdaf42429e363c2a506d6f07a245113ace957519)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fdaf42429e363c2a506d6f07a245113ace957519): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no 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.

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

Instruction count

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

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)	1.3%	[0.1%, 2.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.7%	[-7.0%, -2.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.1%, 2.5%]	2

Cycles

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

[spastorino]

Seems good to me but leaving it up for someone else to re-check.

r? types

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit bc38fb773ceb25cabc71eb6208851d6ae497058f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit bc38fb773ceb25cabc71eb6208851d6ae497058f with merge 513701544d9ac79f0ab94f3907bcdebd649c561d...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[compiler-errors]

Just needed a bless after Esteban's large type sizes PR

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 2025a96 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2025a96 with merge 109cccb...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 109cccb to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (109cccb): 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)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

[lqd]

I won't mark it as triaged now, but I'm pretty sure this is noise, and these benchmarks returning to their stable state: basically the opposite of the wins in #105436 (comment). We can look at these benchmarks' numbers in a few merged PRs (or by weekly triage) to make sure, but this has happened before.

[compiler-errors]

I'm pretty certain this is noise, yeah.

[rylev]

Marking as resolved. The regression cancel out the improvements in the exact same test cases from the previous commit which is a very strong indicator that this is noise.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged