Rollup of 4 pull requests

[GuillaumeGomez]

Successful merges:

• display PID of process holding lock #112918 (display PID of process holding lock)
• Add a regression test for #96699 #112990 (Add a regression test for Test needed for linker error in associated function with generic_const_exprs #96699)
• Add enum for can_access_statics boolean #113011 (Add enum for can_access_statics boolean)
• Fix test for #96258 #113018 (Fix test for ICE: compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/upvar.rs:1701:13: Drop location span error: need to handle more #96258)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=4

[bors]

📌 Commit a3c147b has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a3c147b with merge 0d03812...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 0d03812 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Perf Build Sha
#113018	61fc6c1ebb336de07e41bc03faad0a7338100719
#113011	051db0382d4a2e9a87975627659679c5055fd9eb
#112990	6fd03f3978e1f849b0c593875c62fe7e10b4e88e
#112918	71e7fbdca7f5191e0108c8123516f41b17bb7da4

previous master: 3c5d71a99d

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0d03812): 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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.1%, 1.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1

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)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-4.5%, -1.2%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.6%, -1.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-4.5%, -1.2%]	11

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 663.05s -> 660.819s (-0.34%)

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build 051db0382d4a2e9a87975627659679c5055fd9eb

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (051db0382d4a2e9a87975627659679c5055fd9eb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

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%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1

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)	-2.4%	[-2.8%, -2.1%]	2
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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-4.0%, -1.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-4.0%, -1.1%]	7

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 663.05s -> 662.622s (-0.06%)

[Kobzol]

Hmm, that was part of the cycle wins, but not all. In any case, it was the only PR that changed the compiler, and cycles had nice improvements. It all smells like noise.