Avoid resolving path keywords outside TypeNS

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?

[mu001999]

Fixes#160195

After allowing trailing self, self imports were resolved in all namespaces wrongly. Resolving path keywords should return Determined immediately outside TypeNS.

r? petrochenkov

[mu001999]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit e3464ab has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 10. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

Reason for tree closure: manually handling queue due to backlog

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build b45ce0c

[JonathanBrouwer]

^ All PRs in the rollup are getting this identical regression, this will most likely be a false positive

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b45ce0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 2.5%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 24.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	24.9%	[1.2%, 30.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-4.3%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 11.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	16.3%	[3.6%, 31.5%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.6%	[-14.6%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	21

Bootstrap: 454.551s -> 457.036s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 399.93 MiB -> 399.12 MiB (-0.20%)

[shirok1]

I saw "rustbot added this to the 1.99.0 milestone" so there won't be a 1.97.2 for this fix?