Rollup of 6 pull requests

[JohnTitor]

Successful merges:

• Stabilize half_open_range_patterns #102275 (Stabilize half_open_range_patterns)
• Trying to suggest additional lifetime parameter #102323 (Trying to suggest additional lifetime parameter)
• Recover from impl Trait in type param bound #102345 (Recover from impl Trait in type param bound)
• Elaborate trait ref to compute object safety. #102845 (Elaborate trait ref to compute object safety.)
• Add missing documentation for FileNameDisplayPreference variants #102860 (Add missing documentation for FileNameDisplayPreference variants)
• From<Alignment> for usize & NonZeroUsize #102862 (From for usize & NonZeroUsize)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[JohnTitor]

@bors r+ p=6 rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 6d35efe has been approved by JohnTitor

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6d35efe with merge e495b37...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: JohnTitor
Pushing e495b37 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Perf Build Sha
#102862	5fb6631acabad5edcd2a997ca492f70d0260128a
#102860	2b9a757a280f92754c6d1759b44b78a3a86672e5
#102845	a892a73217a8859ad3ec076292dd5c872f4fc473
#102345	f8a85b85c456e96a16e5b59a1c2b2751c70edcfa
#102323	4a627b7553575ba13efa4505dd252b24f2eba8ac
#102275	33374cb4941ebecd4b63936b7afb52542b2d1bbf

previous master: 1a7c203e7f

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 (e495b37): 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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.2%, 1.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	6.4%	[6.4%, 6.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[-0.8%, 6.4%]	2

Cycles

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

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²

[rylev]

the impacted benchmarks are more sensitive to changes to the trait system, so it looks like it might be #102845

@rust-timer build a892a73217a8859ad3ec076292dd5c872f4fc473

[rust-timer]

Queued a892a73217a8859ad3ec076292dd5c872f4fc473 with parent 1a7c203, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a892a73217a8859ad3ec076292dd5c872f4fc473): 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-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.6%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.2%, 1.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.6%]	7

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	1

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[rylev]

@cjgillot FYI: it appears that indeed #102845 was responsible for the small perf regressions. This is not large enough to warrant any revert, but it might be worth looking into.