[DO NOT MERGE] target-cpu=x86_64v3

[weihanglo]

It's 2025 let's to it again #95302

try-job: dist-x86_64-linux

r? ghost

[weihanglo]

@bors try

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: dd1107b (dd1107b04ee13579bd22c86c55069697445fbe6b, parent: e8a792daf500b5ff8097896ddb6cc037abe92487)

[weihanglo]

@rust-timer queue dd1107b

[rust-timer]

Error occurred while parsing comment: Invalid command argument dd1107b04ee13579bd22c86c55069697445fbe6b (there may be no spaces around the = character)

[weihanglo]

@rust-timer build dd1107b

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (dd1107b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@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)	1.0%	[0.6%, 1.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-6.5%, -0.4%]	214
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-6.9%, -0.2%]	246
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-6.5%, -0.4%]	214

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 5.6%, secondary -2.9%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.6%	[5.6%, 5.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.8%, 2.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-4.9%, -3.2%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.6%	[5.6%, 5.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary -1.6%)

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)	3.4%	[3.2%, 3.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.8%, -1.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-5.1%, -1.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.8%, -1.5%]	3

Binary size

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 1.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	40
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.1%, 1.2%]	8

Bootstrap: 471.66s -> 471.46s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 378.20 MiB -> 381.41 MiB (0.85%)

[weihanglo]

Hum, doesn't seem impressive than the previous result, but still around 1% perf win? How should people interpret this result?

[weihanglo]

Anyway, we got the data. Closing.