Remove mir::LocalDecl::internal.

[cjgillot]

It does not serve any purpose, as we don't have typeck-based generator witnesses any more.

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e63d19c with merge 303263b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 303263b (303263b414fb07767bfdbf4ee7bccb15b3b73d79)

[oli-obk]

r=me with perf clean

r? @oli-obk

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (303263b): 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)	0.6%	[0.5%, 0.7%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-0.5%, 0.7%]	4

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)	4.9%	[0.1%, 9.5%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.4%	[-5.9%, -2.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[-5.9%, 9.5%]	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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1

Binary size

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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-2.5%, -0.0%]	99
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-2.7%, -0.0%]	48
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-2.5%, 0.6%]	113

Bootstrap: 622.858s -> 621.398s (-0.23%)
Artifact size: 271.98 MiB -> 271.94 MiB (-0.01%)

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e63d19c has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e63d19c with merge 5c3a0e9...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 5c3a0e9 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5c3a0e9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.4%, 0.8%]	5

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)	5.7%	[0.1%, 11.7%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-6.2%, -2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[-6.2%, 11.7%]	7

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)	4.4%	[4.4%, 4.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	18
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-2.5%, -0.0%]	99
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-2.6%, -0.0%]	48
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-2.5%, 0.6%]	117

Bootstrap: 622.455s -> 620.986s (-0.24%)
Artifact size: 272.04 MiB -> 271.97 MiB (-0.02%)

[cjgillot]

We now emit slightly more storage statements in MIR: the storage statements for internal locals were not emitted when inlining MIR. This is now more correct, and could benefit LLVM.

[nnethercote]

The biggest perf changes were in binary size, with lots of small reductions, which is nice.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged