Group some fields in a common struct so we only pass one reference instead of three

[oli-obk]

r? @cjgillot

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @cjgillot (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 09baefdd8065d8e799b114874b13957c405a7cf0 with merge f5930b26e08ab39ce89ce55df2ef20a00698b0d3...

[oli-obk]

I... can't reproduce this failure locally. It happens neither with x.py check nor with x.py build

[oli-obk]

Aha! only happens with parallel-compiler=true

[oli-obk]

@rust-timer build f5930b26e08ab39ce89ce55df2ef20a00698b0d3

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f5930b26e08ab39ce89ce55df2ef20a00698b0d3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	1.2%	[0.2%, 3.0%]	131
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[0.1%, 4.9%]	112
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[0.2%, 3.0%]	131

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)	1.1%	[0.6%, 1.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1

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)	1.6%	[0.7%, 3.1%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[0.9%, 5.0%]	29
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[0.7%, 3.1%]	22

[oli-obk]

I fear this regression is solely because going through a query is always more expensive than just accessing a field. I'm still going to bisect this to find the exact commit that caused the regression, but I think in the end we'll have to land it just to get rid of untracked state.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[oli-obk]

r? @petrochenkov

@rustbot ready

[rustbot]

Could not assign reviewer from: petrochenkov.
User(s) petrochenkov are either the PR author or are already assigned, and there are no other candidates.
Use r? to specify someone else to assign.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r=cjgillot,petrochenkov

[bors]

📌 Commit 75ff5c7 has been approved by cjgillot,petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 75ff5c7 with merge cbc70ff...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot,petrochenkov
Pushing cbc70ff to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cbc70ff): 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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	23
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	22
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	33
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-1.4%, -0.2%]	18
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, 0.7%]	56

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)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[nnethercote]

Wins appear to roughly equal or slightly outweigh the losses here.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged