Refactor AddCallGuards in two loops.

[cjgillot]

This PR splits the pass into an analysis loop and a change loop. This allows to avoid invalidating CFG caches if there are no changes to be performed.

r? @ghost for perf

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: caaf007 (caaf0075d0470f3305947fd32d08b42e8f0fbc17, parent: 82224f6891c7e7aa0c6c865aa825100b3ea2d0fb)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (caaf007): 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%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.4%, -0.1%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.8%, secondary 0.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.8%	[4.8%, 4.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.8%	[4.8%, 4.8%]	1

Cycles

Results (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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 473.927s -> 473.175s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 388.42 MiB -> 388.43 MiB (0.00%)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[cjgillot]

r? compiler

[tmiasko]

r=me with start block change squashed to avoid adding and removing it in the same pull request.

[cjgillot]

@bors r=tmiasko

[bors]

📌 Commit 5702fbf has been approved by tmiasko

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5702fbf with merge 61efd19...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: tmiasko
Pushing 61efd19 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 b6f0945 (parent) -> 61efd19 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 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 61efd190243db101d1e47c82c7ec543565c25f62 --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-aarch64-msvc: 6037.8s -> 7188.1s (19.1%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 7355.3s -> 6220.4s (-15.4%)
3. dist-i686-linux: 7329.8s -> 6243.8s (-14.8%)
4. i686-msvc-1: 10341.1s -> 9504.0s (-8.1%)
5. dist-armv7-linux: 5524.0s -> 5077.4s (-8.1%)
6. dist-arm-linux-gnueabi: 5154.8s -> 4759.1s (-7.7%)
7. dist-apple-various: 4480.8s -> 4798.1s (7.1%)
8. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2473.9s -> 2639.4s (6.7%)
9. dist-various-2: 2257.1s -> 2111.8s (-6.4%)
10. aarch64-msvc-2: 5106.4s -> 4796.9s (-6.1%)

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 (61efd19): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	8

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[1.7%, 4.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-2.3%, 4.3%]	4

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 479.914s -> 473.034s (-1.43%)
Artifact size: 388.45 MiB -> 388.41 MiB (-0.01%)