(some normalization improvements)

[compiler-errors]

r? @ghost

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0652c94 with merge 1b372293d0850cd27fde750d33c77f9e276f6cb1...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job mingw-check failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

configure: rust.debug-assertions := True
configure: rust.overflow-checks := True
configure: llvm.assertions      := True
configure: dist.missing-tools   := True
configure: build.configure-args := ['--enable-sccache', '--disable-manage-submodu ...
configure: writing `config.toml` in current directory
configure: 
configure: run `python /checkout/x.py --help`
Attempting with retry: make prepare
---
skip untracked path cpu-usage.csv during rustfmt invocations
skip untracked path src/doc/book/ during rustfmt invocations
skip untracked path src/doc/rust-by-example/ during rustfmt invocations
skip untracked path src/llvm-project/ during rustfmt invocations
Diff in /checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/normalize_erasing_regions.rs at line 2:
 use rustc_middle::traits::query::NoSolution;
 use rustc_middle::ty::{
 use rustc_middle::ty::{
-    self, FallibleTypeFolder, ParamEnvAnd, Ty, TyCtxt, TypeFoldable, TypeSuperFoldable, TypeVisitable,
+    self, FallibleTypeFolder, ParamEnvAnd, Ty, TyCtxt, TypeFoldable, TypeSuperFoldable,
+    TypeVisitable,
 use rustc_trait_selection::traits::query::normalize::AtExt;
 use rustc_trait_selection::traits::query::normalize::AtExt;
 use rustc_trait_selection::traits::{Normalized, ObligationCause};
Running `"/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0/bin/rustfmt" "--config-path" "/checkout" "--edition" "2021" "--unstable-features" "--skip-children" "--check" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/chalk/lowering.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/chalk/mod.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/normalize_erasing_regions.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/evaluate_obligation.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/implied_outlives_bounds.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/errors.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/structured_errors/sized_unsized_cast.rs" "/checkout/compiler/rustc_traits/src/chalk/db.rs"` failed.
If you're running `tidy`, try again with `--bless`. Or, if you just want to format code, run `./x.py fmt` instead.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 1b372293d0850cd27fde750d33c77f9e276f6cb1 (1b372293d0850cd27fde750d33c77f9e276f6cb1)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1b372293d0850cd27fde750d33c77f9e276f6cb1): 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-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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	18.3%	[0.5%, 78.4%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.6%, -0.1%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	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)	2.0%	[0.8%, 3.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[0.8%, 3.1%]	2

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)	24.0%	[6.5%, 60.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1

[Dylan-DPC]

Closing this as it was an experiment.