Wrap the whole LocalInfo in ClearCrossCrate.

[cjgillot]

MIR contains a lot of information about locals. The primary purpose of this information is the quality of borrowck diagnostics.

This PR aims to drop this information after MIR analyses are finished, ie. starting from post-cleanup runtime MIR.

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 345a9749c71bab291a3ffb43e0194342ae11291a with merge a2523b11c11aa554813e8ecc01272e3bb92ba1d2...

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d6008dafc64975183e3a82d2e5083652a5f4c404): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	1.5%	[1.1%, 1.9%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.1%, 2.9%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.3%, -0.2%]	61
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-2.6%, -0.4%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.3%, 1.9%]	66

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)	2.1%	[1.1%, 3.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-3.5%, -0.1%]	27
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-4.0%, -0.8%]	18
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-3.5%, -0.1%]	27

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)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.2%, 3.6%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.4%, -1.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.4%, 1.5%]	6

[cjgillot]

Perf: ~0.8% improvement in instruction count, driven by reduced crate metadata encoding/decoding (crate_metadata -1.8%).
Two outliers: unicode-normalization (more calls to relate) and ucd (more calls to coerce_unsized). I don't understand yet why.

r? compiler

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[oli-obk]

clippy tests also need some blessing.

r? @oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 2adf2cd has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2adf2cd with merge 511364e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 511364e to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (511364e): 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)	1.6%	[0.3%, 2.4%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.0%, 2.9%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.3%, -0.5%]	45
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.7%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.3%, 2.4%]	51

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.0%, 3.0%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-2.1%, -0.7%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.3%, -1.3%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-2.1%, 2.5%]	13

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)	1.9%	[1.6%, 2.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.2%, 3.3%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[1.6%, 2.2%]	4

[cjgillot]

Perf report : identical to #108944 (comment)
The improvement is in crate metadata size, on average -1.8% up to 5%.

[nnethercote]

A lot of movement in many metrics in those results. Cycles and wall-time look a little worse than instruction counts, like they are slight regressions overall. Results in secondary benchmarks are worse than primary benchmarks (which is better than the other way around). But binary size reductions are quite high on numerous benchmarks. I guess overall you could say all of this balances out.

[pnkfelix]

• primary instruction count regression was to unicode normalization (5 variations in [1.5%, 2.4%] range). Slightly more muted for cycle count and wall time there.
• as noted by @lqd and @nnethercote on PR comments: crate metadata + binary size improved all around.
• overall this is a win
• marking as triaged.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[ryoqun]

@cjgillot hi, it seems that this pr introduced some clippy false-positves of redundant_clone.

namely, rust-lang/rust-clippy#10577 and rust-lang/rust-clippy#10517 (added testcases)

and maybe this too: rust-lang/rust-clippy#10545

I concluded this bisect with this branch: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...ryoqun:rust:clippy-redundant-clone-false-positives?expand=1

and this command:

./x.py clean && ./x.py test src/tools/clippy

seems bunch of nightly clippy users are noticing likewise. so i think there will be more after 1.70 is released?

(EDIT: i also checked latest nightly 2023-05-26 is still affected as well)

[oli-obk]

This needs to be fixed on the clippy side. We must have been using the LocalInfo mistakenly in the clippy lint