Include arguments to the precondition check in failure messages

[saethlin]

For now, just checking if this tanks compile times or something like that. It shouldn't? I hope?

r? ghost

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 65e5e12 with merge 3e5570d...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3e5570d (3e5570d97bbdc7ad24c94a33f53de28891b51c2f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3e5570d): comparison URL.

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

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.2%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.2%]	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 2.2%)

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)	3.3%	[1.0%, 6.9%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[0.7%, 3.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-6.8%, -1.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-6.8%, 6.9%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary 1.5%)

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)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 1.0%)

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)	0.5%	[0.1%, 4.2%]	67
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[0.3%, 7.0%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.0%]	9
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.4%, 4.2%]	76

Bootstrap: 759.925s -> 762.008s (0.27%)
Artifact size: 325.47 MiB -> 325.53 MiB (0.02%)

[saethlin]

The most-regressed benchmark jumped from 2 CGUs to 4 CGUs. I wonder if that means that the overhead here is coming from having both macros in the codebase.

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4dc2e6c with merge ab6d099...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-18 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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

#21 exporting to docker image format
#21 sending tarball 27.3s done
#21 DONE 41.3s
##[endgroup]
Setting extra environment values for docker:  --env ENABLE_GCC_CODEGEN=1 --env GCC_EXEC_PREFIX=/usr/lib/gcc/
[CI_JOB_NAME=x86_64-gnu-llvm-18]
debug: `DISABLE_CI_RUSTC_IF_INCOMPATIBLE` configured.
---
sccache: Starting the server...
##[group]Configure the build
configure: processing command line
configure: 
configure: build.configure-args := ['--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu', '--llvm-root=/usr/lib/llvm-18', '--enable-llvm-link-shared', '--set', 'rust.randomize-layout=true', '--set', 'rust.thin-lto-import-instr-limit=10', '--enable-verbose-configure', '--enable-sccache', '--disable-manage-submodules', '--enable-locked-deps', '--enable-cargo-native-static', '--set', 'rust.codegen-units-std=1', '--set', 'dist.compression-profile=balanced', '--dist-compression-formats=xz', '--set', 'rust.lld=false', '--disable-dist-src', '--release-channel=nightly', '--enable-debug-assertions', '--enable-overflow-checks', '--enable-llvm-assertions', '--set', 'rust.verify-llvm-ir', '--set', 'rust.codegen-backends=llvm,cranelift,gcc', '--set', 'llvm.static-libstdcpp', '--enable-new-symbol-mangling']
configure: target.x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.llvm-config := /usr/lib/llvm-18/bin/llvm-config
configure: llvm.link-shared     := True
configure: rust.randomize-layout := True
configure: rust.thin-lto-import-instr-limit := 10
---
   Compiling cfg-if v1.0.0
   Compiling adler v1.0.2
   Compiling memchr v2.7.4
   Compiling rustc-demangle v0.1.24
error: `compiler_builtins` cannot call functions through upstream monomorphizations; encountered invalid call from `<*const T as rustc_std_workspace_core::fmt::Debug>::fmt` to `rustc_std_workspace_core::fmt::pointer_fmt_inner`

error: `compiler_builtins` cannot call functions through upstream monomorphizations; encountered invalid call from `<*mut T as rustc_std_workspace_core::fmt::Debug>::fmt` to `rustc_std_workspace_core::fmt::pointer_fmt_inner`
   Compiling unwind v0.0.0 (/checkout/library/unwind)
error: could not compile `compiler_builtins` (lib) due to 2 previous errors
warning: build failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:27

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ab6d099 (ab6d099e757160119c73b5a102cc1bc7a5dae9ca)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ab6d099): comparison URL.

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

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 2.2%]	26
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[0.1%, 12.0%]	40
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.5%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 2.2%]	26

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.2%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	2.8%	[2.0%, 3.2%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[1.2%, 5.0%]	21
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.1%	[-8.1%, -1.0%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.4%, -1.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-8.1%, 3.2%]	11

Cycles

Results (primary 1.8%, secondary 4.4%)

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)	1.8%	[1.2%, 2.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[2.4%, 12.1%]	21
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[1.2%, 2.4%]	3

Binary size

Results (primary 1.0%, secondary 1.8%)

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)	1.1%	[0.0%, 7.1%]	69
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[0.0%, 4.7%]	32
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[-0.6%, 7.1%]	76

Bootstrap: 761.022s -> 762.055s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 325.49 MiB -> 325.53 MiB (0.01%)