Cross-crate inline functions that only call another function.

[cjgillot]

r? @ghost

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

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

Saved the actual run.stderr to `/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/process/println-with-broken-pipe/println-with-broken-pipe.run.stderr`
diff of run.stderr:

1 
- thread 'main' ($TID) panicked at library/std/src/io/stdio.rs:LL:CC:
+ thread 'main' ($TID) panicked at $SRC_DIR/std/src/io/stdio.rs:LL:COL:
3 failed printing to stdout: Broken pipe (os error 32)
4 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
5 

Note: some mismatched output was normalized before being compared
- thread 'main' (141221) panicked at /rustc/FAKE_PREFIX/library/std/src/io/stdio.rs:1165:9:
+ thread 'main' ($TID) panicked at $SRC_DIR/std/src/io/stdio.rs:LL:COL:


The actual run.stderr differed from the expected run.stderr

error: 1 errors occurred comparing run output.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 1e4c5f3 (1e4c5f3388db57144b1b4ea717176afc57226795, parent: 4b94758d2ba7d0ef71ccf5fde29ce4bc5d6fe2a4)

[saethlin]

FYI, I tried this a little while ago and it was bad: #116898

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1e4c5f3): 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)	21.8%	[0.1%, 883.0%]	183
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	19.5%	[0.1%, 236.5%]	147
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-12.4%, -0.1%]	44
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-24.3%, -0.1%]	106
All ❌✅ (primary)	17.4%	[-12.4%, 883.0%]	227

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 8.0%, secondary 9.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	8.3%	[0.5%, 27.4%]	51
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	9.8%	[0.7%, 76.1%]	108
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-2.2%, -1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-4.0%, -2.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	8.0%	[-2.2%, 27.4%]	53

Cycles

Results (primary 68.7%, secondary 31.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	71.8%	[1.3%, 854.3%]	52
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	35.9%	[2.0%, 273.1%]	90
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-13.0%	[-16.8%, -9.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-11.9%	[-19.3%, -4.7%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	68.7%	[-16.8%, 854.3%]	54

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%, secondary 3.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[0.0%, 17.8%]	101
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.9%	[0.0%, 55.3%]	96
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-3.5%, -0.0%]	37
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-19.0%, -0.1%]	47
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[-3.5%, 17.8%]	138

Bootstrap: 475.312s -> 547.264s (15.14%)
Artifact size: 388.16 MiB -> 403.91 MiB (4.06%)

[cjgillot]

Ah thank you, I had forgotten. Your conclusion is still true I guess :)