rustdoc: use strategic boxing to shrink clean::Item

[notriddle]

• inline_stmt_id is never a cross-crate DefId, so save space by not storing it.
• Instead of two inner boxes for Item, use one.

[rustbot]

r? @GuillaumeGomez

rustbot has assigned @GuillaumeGomez.
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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

[notriddle]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a3127ca with merge a28aaf0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a28aaf0 (a28aaf07ecdf971595bc212c884de38db3b18082)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a28aaf0): 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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.3%, 8.1%]	20
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.3%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.7%, -0.3%]	20
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.0%, 3.3%]	15

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -0.5%)

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)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.5%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-2.9%, -0.4%]	44
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-2.1%, -0.4%]	59
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-2.9%, 1.7%]	66

Cycles

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	0.9%	[0.4%, 5.2%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[0.4%, 4.9%]	56
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-4.1%, -0.4%]	27
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-5.2%, -0.4%]	60
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-4.1%, 5.2%]	48

Binary size

Results (primary 0.9%)

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)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1

Bootstrap: 788.226s -> 790.547s (0.29%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.73 MiB (-0.00%)

[notriddle]

The 3% and 8% "regressions" are both spurious. They must be, because they're compiler profiles and I only changed rustdoc.

Benchmark	Profile	Scenario	% Change	Significance Factor
syn-1.0.89	opt	full	3.32%	16.59x
deep-vector	debug	full	8.08%	40.40x

The same can be said for all of the max-rss changes. This, like #128263, is a CPU improvement, even though it's mostly decreasing the size of things.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Nice work!

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit a3127ca has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[notriddle]

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

📌 Commit 6590336 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6590336 with merge b36b9af...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext2 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[RUSTC-TIMING] miri test:false 4.488
error: failed to remove file `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage1-tools\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\release\miri.exe`

Caused by:
  Access is denied. (os error 5)
Command has failed. Rerun with -v to see more details.
  local time: Sun, Sep  8, 2024 11:37:04 PM
  network time: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 23:37:04 GMT
##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.
Post job cleanup.

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[notriddle]

@bors retry #127883

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6590336 with merge 32544e3...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext2 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[RUSTC-TIMING] miri test:false 5.074
error: failed to remove file `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage1-tools\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\release\miri.exe`

Caused by:
  Access is denied. (os error 5)
Command has failed. Rerun with -v to see more details.
  local time: Mon, Sep  9, 2024  3:27:31 AM
  network time: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 03:27:31 GMT
##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.
Post job cleanup.

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[notriddle]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6590336 with merge 712463d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 712463d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (712463d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.3%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.2%]	15

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.6%)

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)	3.6%	[3.2%, 4.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 757.468s -> 757.734s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 341.12 MiB -> 341.11 MiB (-0.00%)