Only consider places with the same local in each_borrow_involving_path.

[cjgillot]

This avoids having a busy loop that repeatedly checks for equality of locals.

[rustbot]

r? @eholk

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

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 85fe5a0 with merge b2e1ec8f91d4864924d7bc660e4e1714e25c4998...

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d84c14603343c01f0d65ef543dc228fa8d04beaa with merge c025715001dea716a1fd153ab20ee67fa5aa9530...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b49aba8 with merge 25f421f60574a694b8971f72bba1116a37bd9eae...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 25f421f60574a694b8971f72bba1116a37bd9eae (25f421f60574a694b8971f72bba1116a37bd9eae)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (25f421f60574a694b8971f72bba1116a37bd9eae): 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%, 0.5%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.6%, 1.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.5%, 0.5%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

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)	4.5%	[4.3%, 4.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 640.861s -> 641.156s (0.05%)

[wesleywiser]

r? rust-lang/compiler

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit b798939 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b798939 with merge 866710c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 866710c to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (866710c): 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)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.7%, 5.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.5%, 0.6%]	8

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.0%, -1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.0%, -1.2%]	2

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 649.854s -> 650.5s (0.10%)

[compiler-errors]

Ugh, didn't catch the perf results when reviewing this. Was too focused on the actual changes to the code 😅

I guess if it's not a perf improvement, we should probably revert this.