[xmakro]

cleanup, suggested by @cjgillot in #160245 (comment)

[mu001999]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a0028bb (a0028bb090f8b585ad0360ba7886aac401184c29)
Base parent: 969b803 (969b803cbe1d4499f841ae0a49c637d8c70a0458)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a0028bb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -0.3%)

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)	2.3%	[0.5%, 9.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-4.9%, -0.4%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary 2.2%, secondary 0.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[2.0%, 2.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.6%, 2.5%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-2.5%, -0.4%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[2.0%, 2.3%]	3

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 458.441s -> 459.465s (0.22%)
Artifact size: 398.59 MiB -> 398.61 MiB (0.01%)

[panstromek]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 0465fce (0465fcebe6789a7f1499efdffaa30cd55fe55239)
Base parent: 6f5da40 (6f5da406b56c2db6607202b63daee73aa8c61297)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0465fce): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.1%]	38
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary 3.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.2%	[2.6%, 3.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.6%	[3.3%, 12.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.4%, -0.8%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.9%, -1.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-1.4%, 3.8%]	8

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.8%)

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)	4.6%	[2.4%, 8.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-3.8%, -1.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 488.596s -> 488.759s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 407.26 MiB -> 406.76 MiB (-0.12%)

[panstromek]

cc @jackh726 - I believe you've been thinking about this as well, right? (Maybe I misremember, feel free to ignore me)

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #164757) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

[jackh726]

Uh, yeah. I mean, I would like to get rid of Rc/Arc entirely here.