-Zfuel is incompatible with incremental compilation

[tmiasko]

No description provided.

[rustbot]

r? @b-naber

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[lqd]

Are the fuel values printed by -Z print-fuel meaningful with incremental compilation turned on? (if you can't even then use -Zfuel with them)

r=me with or without the nit above about stderrs

[tmiasko]

• Updated to also reject -Z print-fuel, since it has no practical application without -Z fuel.

@bors r=lqd

[bors]

📌 Commit 1a47e41 has been approved by lqd

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 1a47e41 with merge d6fa38a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lqd
Pushing d6fa38a to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d6fa38a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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%	[0.5%, 3.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-2.9%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-2.9%, 3.0%]	4

Cycles

Results

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 673.459s -> 675.561s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 314.00 MiB -> 314.00 MiB (-0.00%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

This benchmark appears to be noisy, this change is within that noise floor:

Removing regression label.