Compute stability by definition

[cjgillot]

The current query is monolithic and depends on all the items in the crate at once. As a consequence, it is always recomputed and walk the whole HIR.

This PR aims to compute this information on-demand only.

[rust-highfive]

r? @lcnr

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 59a56a84b9bc8d24ed1c79f2b06316aa878ad9d7 with merge 3c5fb9f44bb793a329827fbbe81bce24ba6e81b6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3c5fb9f44bb793a329827fbbe81bce24ba6e81b6 (3c5fb9f44bb793a329827fbbe81bce24ba6e81b6)

[rust-timer]

Queued 3c5fb9f44bb793a329827fbbe81bce24ba6e81b6 with parent ee5d8d3, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3c5fb9f44bb793a329827fbbe81bce24ba6e81b6): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -1.0% on incr-unchanged builds of ctfe-stress-4 check)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 8.0% on incr-full builds of unused-warnings check)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2881231bc581e82a05d2ab4b8aa863c2820037df with merge 1f4e3b20d63a9454962927681c913350a3599109...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1f4e3b20d63a9454962927681c913350a3599109 (1f4e3b20d63a9454962927681c913350a3599109)

[rust-timer]

Queued 1f4e3b20d63a9454962927681c913350a3599109 with parent 5e57faa, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1f4e3b20d63a9454962927681c913350a3599109): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -1.1% on incr-unchanged builds of ctfe-stress-4 check)
• Very large regression in instruction counts (up to 6.0% on incr-unchanged builds of match-stress-enum check)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

[petrochenkov]

These stability/deprecation checking passes are something that I also wanted to move to name resolution, to fix stability/deprecation checking for reexports and individual components inside paths (cc #15702), if that is done then it will probably still look like a monolithic pass across the whole crate.

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 20ef0110ede1e9262a129e9595f4687a2e28ca6b with merge 34abd002a81d8d98e4aec1d01e31b6c4b94ad09c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 34abd002a81d8d98e4aec1d01e31b6c4b94ad09c (34abd002a81d8d98e4aec1d01e31b6c4b94ad09c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (34abd002a81d8d98e4aec1d01e31b6c4b94ad09c): 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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	39
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[0.3%, 5.7%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	39

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)	0.8%	[0.5%, 1.4%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[3.7%, 3.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.4%, -2.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-4.1%, -0.9%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-3.4%, 1.4%]	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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.9%	[3.7%, 7.7%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[cjgillot]

With only lookup_deprecation_entry
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 87f62c3 with merge 3935c8634970bca12aada5357279acd519f03012...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3935c8634970bca12aada5357279acd519f03012 (3935c8634970bca12aada5357279acd519f03012)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3935c8634970bca12aada5357279acd519f03012): 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)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	59
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.1%, 3.0%]	29
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	59

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)	1.5%	[0.6%, 4.7%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[0.6%, 4.7%]	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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1