Rollup of 9 pull requests

[Noratrieb]

Successful merges:

• Collect and emit proper backtraces for delay_span_bugs #106321 (Collect and emit proper backtraces for delay_span_bugs)
• Check impl's where clauses in consider_impl_candidate in experimental solver #106397 (Check impl's where clauses in consider_impl_candidate in experimental solver)
• Improve fluent error messages #106427 (Improve fluent error messages)
• add tests for div_duration_* functions #106570 (add tests for div_duration_* functions)
• Polymorphization cleanup #106648 (Polymorphization cleanup)
• Remove unnecessary lseek syscall when using std::fs::read #106664 (Remove unnecessary lseek syscall when using std::fs::read)
• Disable "split dwarf inlining" by default. #106709 (Disable "split dwarf inlining" by default.)
• Autolabel and ping wg for changes to new solver #106715 (Autolabel and ping wg for changes to new solver)
• fix typo LocalItemId -> ItemLocalId #106717 (fix typo LocalItemId -> ItemLocalId)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[Noratrieb]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=9

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb
Pushing ef4046e to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Perf Build Sha
#106717	12984406716635c318ba2601a472d62ae5cb3f98
#106715	771ffc65cc6adeb8382f75dcb734fc23cfd5c7f1
#106709	28d6383a20203a942f27d95cd73e4a0840215807
#106664	40306d15c01aa204444bad40f144f67eab627212
#106648	31e458cecb1ee908068a512aae377eabeaffe4c2
#106570	8d2926f9e2470bef44b23043695cbd490b72a4ed
#106427	4ff2c51d9f634cd6ef7836d6ad82ebb0df7fe165
#106397	267a288529294a4e0c4b17f8849ec2e88dc7c0b5
#106321	0f72f44d56cbdd8e6b219a1eb38b0aa705c90907

previous master: b22c152958

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 (ef4046e): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6

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)	5.5%	[5.5%, 5.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-4.1%, -2.5%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-4.9%, -0.6%]	87
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-4.1%, -2.5%]	10

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[Noratrieb]

@rust-timer build 28d6383a20203a942f27d95cd73e4a0840215807

[Noratrieb]

@rust-timer build 40306d15c01aa204444bad40f144f67eab627212

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (28d6383a20203a942f27d95cd73e4a0840215807): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	4.8%	[4.8%, 4.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

[Noratrieb]

@rust-timer build 40306d15c01aa204444bad40f144f67eab627212

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (40306d15c01aa204444bad40f144f67eab627212): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	3.6%	[2.8%, 4.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.8%, -1.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

[Noratrieb]

@rust-timer build 31e458cecb1ee908068a512aae377eabeaffe4c2

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (31e458cecb1ee908068a512aae377eabeaffe4c2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

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

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.9%, -2.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-5.0%, -0.7%]	102
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.9%, -2.4%]	10

Cycles

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

[Noratrieb]

Weird, maybe it's just noise. whatever, let's also try the unlikely candidates
@rust-timer build 0f72f44d56cbdd8e6b219a1eb38b0aa705c90907

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0f72f44d56cbdd8e6b219a1eb38b0aa705c90907): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	11

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)	5.1%	[5.1%, 5.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.7%, -2.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

[Noratrieb]

#106321 seems to be the culprit, the same tiny regressions in incr builds. Pretty weird since that shouldn't have touched the happy path but maybe something from the flushing changed it? Or do we sometimes delay bugs in some weird ways anyways even on the happy path?
I'm inclined to ignore the regression since it's so tiny but maybe there's an easy fix
cc @compiler-errors

[pnkfelix]

My understanding is that the code running delay_span_bug should never cause any semantic effect for input source that satisfies Rust's static analyses. (Because the whole point is there are two cases: either the static analyses reject the input for some other reason, or the static analyses accept the input but then that causes the delay_span_bug to fire off an ICE.)

I too am confused about why #106321 could have caused a performance impact. (We don't benchmark the compiler against type-incorrect code, do we? Even if we do/did, none of the flagged cases represent such instances...)

I'm thus inclined to categorize this as noise and mark it as triaged; if @compiler-errors wants to look into it, that's fine, but we don't need to add it to our accumulated set of perf regression issues.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged