Avoid some unnecessary query invocations.

[oli-obk]

Specifically this inlines const_eval_poly and avoids computing the generic params, the param env, normalizing the param env and erasing lifetimes on everything.

should fix the perf regression from #121087

[rustbot]

r? @lcnr

rustbot has assigned @lcnr.
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

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 56d7af2 with merge 5dd0e76...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5dd0e76 (5dd0e762f2310f31dcc3a222af9b995ca83423fd)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5dd0e76): 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)	7.0%	[0.5%, 45.8%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	252.5%	[0.5%, 1555.6%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.9%, -0.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.1%	[-1.9%, 45.8%]	13

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)	5.2%	[1.7%, 18.7%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	29.9%	[2.6%, 88.0%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.2%, -2.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[-2.2%, 18.7%]	8

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)	7.4%	[0.6%, 46.6%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	341.7%	[38.7%, 1148.9%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	7.4%	[0.6%, 46.6%]	13

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 640.751s -> 643.134s (0.37%)
Artifact size: 308.59 MiB -> 308.64 MiB (0.02%)

[oli-obk]

lolwat

[lcnr]

@rustbot author ✨

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0df64c5 with merge 76a24ac...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 76a24ac (76a24ac565440d1bdf3a9aba6039f43ebde054ba)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (76a24ac): 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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.5%, 0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1

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.

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 648.961s -> 649.002s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 310.94 MiB -> 310.94 MiB (-0.00%)

[oli-obk]

Fixes the libc regression. Need to find out why it didn't affect the other benchmarks, and even had some negative effects on some

[oli-obk]

@rustbot ready

the new regressions are just the usual inliner noise. const eval got more instructions, even though it was not touched at all

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit c9f78da with merge 1298e36...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1298e36 (1298e36829f301dfb6252700866e973ccd1a2aed)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1298e36): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3

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)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.4%	[-4.4%, -4.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-4.4%, 2.9%]	2

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: 651.162s -> 652.353s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 311.20 MiB -> 311.22 MiB (0.00%)

[oli-obk]

reverted back to previous version

[lcnr]

I feel somewhat uncomfortable about this change, even though it does not seem to break anything right now 🤔 I also don't have an intuitive enough understanding of const eval

Though, given that it should only result in more errors, r=me after adding the test

[oli-obk]

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit 3ec5042 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 3ec5042 with merge 519d892...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 519d892 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (519d892): 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)	-1.0%	[-1.7%, -0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.7%, -0.3%]	2

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)	-1.8%	[-3.8%, -0.7%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-5.4%, -1.9%]	18
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-3.8%, -0.7%]	15

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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[5.0%, 5.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-3.1%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-3.1%, 0.8%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 672.066s -> 672.189s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 315.70 MiB -> 315.72 MiB (0.01%)