Don't generate functions with the rustc_intrinsic_must_be_overridden attribute

[DianQK]

Functions with the attribute rustc_intrinsic_must_be_overridden never be called.

r? compiler

[DianQK]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f083be2 with merge 438c84c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 438c84c (438c84c46ca46e3300ce9cdc9860333bfb15c44b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (438c84c): 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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	27
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-2.0%, -0.2%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-0.3%, 0.8%]	30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.2%, secondary -0.7%)

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)	3.9%	[1.4%, 8.8%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[0.8%, 4.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.7%, -3.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-4.2%, -2.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[-3.7%, 8.8%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary 2.3%, secondary 0.4%)

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)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -2.9%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.1%, -0.0%]	49
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-4.4%, -3.3%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.1%, 0.1%]	57

Bootstrap: 749.337s -> 749.656s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 339.12 MiB -> 339.22 MiB (0.03%)

[DianQK]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4508800 with merge 05d56f1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 05d56f1 (05d56f18dc44c938d49e46f7ce3928a987115210)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (05d56f1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.9%, -0.2%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary -0.1%)

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)	4.1%	[1.3%, 8.7%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[3.7%, 4.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.5%, -2.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-5.9%, -2.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[-3.5%, 8.7%]	10

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -2.9%)

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.1%, -0.0%]	50
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-4.4%, -3.3%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.1%, 0.1%]	58

Bootstrap: 751.033s -> 749.665s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 339.18 MiB -> 339.36 MiB (0.05%)

[DianQK]

r? @saethlin

[saethlin]

Sweet! Thanks!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 4508800 has been approved by saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 4508800 with merge 4741807...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[DianQK]

@bors retry 💥

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 4508800 with merge 4d5b3b1...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: saethlin
Pushing 4d5b3b1 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4d5b3b1): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-2.2%, -0.6%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.2%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary -2.4%)

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)	4.7%	[1.6%, 8.7%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.4%	[-4.7%, -2.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.8%	[-6.6%, -2.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[-4.7%, 8.7%]	9

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.3%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.5%, -2.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -3.6%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.1%, -0.0%]	50
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-4.4%, -3.3%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.1%, 0.1%]	58

Bootstrap: 749.153s -> 749.351s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 338.89 MiB -> 338.82 MiB (-0.02%)

[pnkfelix]

Visiting for weekly rustc-perf triage

• from inspecting the PR, its hard to imagine doing this in a better way, and I suspect the single reported regression is noise.
• marking as triaged

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged