Clear inner_attr_ranges regularly.

[nnethercote]

There's a comment saying we don't do it for performance reasons, but it doesn't actually affect performance.

The commit also tweaks the control flow, to make clearer that two code paths are mutually exclusive.

r? @petrochenkov

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 99721c8 with merge a399dda...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a399dda (a399ddac2a96b84bd7f8d4fd5e2fdcff8d230479)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a399dda): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -2.4%, secondary -9.3%)

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)	-2.4%	[-3.7%, -1.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-9.3%	[-13.4%, -5.3%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-3.7%, -1.6%]	6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 699.651s -> 700.319s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 328.40 MiB -> 328.39 MiB (-0.00%)

[tgross35]

Note was added at #82608, for reference

[nnethercote]

Note was added at #82608, for reference

Yes. But that was a large PR, and I can believe not every aspect of its performance effects were fully understood. Or something else has changed in the meantime. Because the perf run shows it has no effect. (The cycle/walltime improvements appear to be bogus, just a reversion to the mean.)

[nnethercote]

r? @petrochenkov

[rustbot]

Could not assign reviewer from: petrochenkov.
User(s) petrochenkov are either the PR author, already assigned, or on vacation, and there are no other candidates.
Use r? to specify someone else to assign.

[tgross35]

Note was added at #82608, for reference

Yes. But that was a large PR, and I can believe not every aspect of its performance effects were fully understood. Or something else has changed in the meantime. Because the perf run shows it has no effect. (The cycle/walltime improvements appear to be bogus, just a reversion to the mean.)

Oh yeah I believe you of course, I was just curious where the comment came from and figured I can't be the only one :)

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 99721c8 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.