deduced_param_attrs: check Freeze on monomorphic types.

[cjgillot]

deduced_param_attrs currently checks Freeze bound on polymorphic MIR. This pessimizes the deduction, as generic types are not Freeze by default.

This moves the check to the ABI adjustment.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ef001a9 (ef001a9a6522bdb242a88cc118f67a08816ce312, parent: 844264adda6f41ca6d0d61c4bcac0f263fc5072f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ef001a9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

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.

@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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 4.2%)

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)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -3.3%, secondary 4.4%)

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)	4.4%	[4.4%, 4.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary -0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1

Bootstrap: 474.738s -> 473.548s (-0.25%)
Artifact size: 388.14 MiB -> 388.14 MiB (-0.00%)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[rustbot]

r? @madsmtm

rustbot has assigned @madsmtm.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: e6a8341 (e6a8341d5444274f631837d830c144d1d0b1b41c, parent: a41214f9bd7ce869d21898f31107f92c90a9112f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6a8341): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.4%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.2%, secondary -3.6%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-4.7%, -2.3%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.9%)

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)	2.7%	[2.4%, 3.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1

Bootstrap: 476.516s -> 475.21s (-0.27%)
Artifact size: 390.37 MiB -> 390.30 MiB (-0.02%)

[tmiasko]

Thanks!
@bors r+
r? tmiasko

[bors]

📌 Commit 0b02102 has been approved by tmiasko

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0b02102 with merge 0c0f27a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: tmiasko
Pushing 0c0f27a to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing c8a31b7 (parent) -> 0c0f27a (this PR)

Test differences

Show 239 test diffs

239 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 0c0f27afd42c977d5ea5f6df2c8f5bc192bdc67a --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-apple: 6056.3s -> 6683.3s (10.4%)
2. pr-check-1: 1618.9s -> 1453.6s (-10.2%)
3. i686-msvc-1: 9274.8s -> 10200.2s (10.0%)
4. dist-aarch64-apple: 6655.3s -> 5992.8s (-10.0%)
5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 2731.8s -> 2476.0s (-9.4%)
6. x86_64-gnu-aux: 6195.5s -> 6742.7s (8.8%)
7. dist-apple-various: 3563.4s -> 3261.3s (-8.5%)
8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3523.1s -> 3225.4s (-8.4%)
9. dist-x86_64-freebsd: 4752.8s -> 5138.1s (8.1%)
10. dist-powerpc-linux: 5440.9s -> 5054.4s (-7.1%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0c0f27a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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%, 0.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary -5.2%)

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)	-5.2%	[-5.2%, -5.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1

Bootstrap: 473.714s -> 474.582s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 390.54 MiB -> 390.62 MiB (0.02%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Appears to be a regression limited to the bitmaps benchmark. Most other benchmarks, though below noise threshold, are slightly improved or neutral. The initial perf run in PR was also a strict improvement. It doesn't seem like a spurious regression, but also doesn't seem like it merits further followup.

Marking as perf-triaged.