[panstromek]

To test whether this causes the unexpected improvement in #164425

We could also test each of those newtypes separately, but I don't think it's super important, I just want to test the hypothesis.

[panstromek]

@bors try

@rust-timer queue benchmarks=ctfe-stress-5,deep-vector,issue-58319,large-workspace,libc-0.2.172,tt-muncher priority=-11

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 1473cc4 (1473cc45f7125ef8463d90a8e27dbed8e9f4a2fa)
Base parent: a0326ca (a0326caa8961d2900534b29e10a57afcdcf65135)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1473cc4): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 406.42 MiB -> 406.45 MiB (0.01%)

[panstromek]

ok, let's try to remove the niche completely (newtype_index has some smaller niche by default)

@bors try

@rust-timer queue benchmarks=ctfe-stress-5,deep-vector,issue-58319,large-workspace,libc-0.2.172,tt-muncher priority=-11

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job test-x86_64-gnu-tools failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

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

[WARNING] line 38: Delta is 0 for "x", maybe try to use `compare-elements-position` instead?

======== tests/rustdoc-gui/sidebar-resize-setting.goml ========

[ERROR] line 30
    at `tests/rustdoc-gui/utils.goml` line 52
    at `tests/rustdoc-gui/utils.goml` line 42: Error: The following CSS properties still don't match: [expected `block` for key `display`, found `none`]: for command `wait-for-css: ("#settings", {"display": "block"})`
    at <file:///checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/rustdoc-gui/doc/test_docs/index.html>


<= doc-ui tests done: 151 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 filtered out

Error: ()

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4612f1e (4612f1e19cb049bb70062c2f9feb003716649046)
Base parent: 34228cf (34228cf7f5bdd08d320dedf008b8995dd3e743e2)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4612f1e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 1.0%)

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)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 406.20 MiB -> 406.16 MiB (-0.01%)