[Aaron1011]

This removes a comment that no longer applies, and properly hashes
the full ident for path segments.

[rust-highfive]

r? @davidtwco

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Aaron1011]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 002a4e1 with merge a6007f8e3f60d01d5451819b7c082c9b80b8a12a...

[cjgillot]

Where is this impl used?

[Aaron1011]

This is needed to be able to call ident.hash_stable

[cjgillot]

I mean the impl for Path.

[Aaron1011]

It's used by AttrItem and other AST structs

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a6007f8e3f60d01d5451819b7c082c9b80b8a12a (a6007f8e3f60d01d5451819b7c082c9b80b8a12a)

[rust-timer]

Queued a6007f8e3f60d01d5451819b7c082c9b80b8a12a with parent ab33f71, future comparison URL.

[davidtwco]

r? @cjgillot

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a6007f8e3f60d01d5451819b7c082c9b80b8a12a): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	0	2	0	0	0
mean2	N/A	1.3%	N/A	N/A	N/A
max	N/A	1.3%	N/A	N/A	N/A

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[cjgillot]

This PR fixes a possible incremental compilation ICE.
@bors r+
@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[bors]

📌 Commit 002a4e1 has been approved by cjgillot

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 002a4e1 with merge af68f71...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing af68f71 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (af68f71): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	1	0	0	7	1
mean2	2.6%	N/A	N/A	-0.4%	2.6%
max	2.6%	N/A	N/A	-0.5%	2.6%

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[pnkfelix]

Visiting for weekly performance triage.

• This was already marked as triaged, but at the time it was marked, the only regressions were to secondary benchmarks.
• The version that landed flagged a 2.6% regression to primary benchmark syn-1.0.89, which wasn't expected by the trial runs.
• (self-profile says its due to extra time spent in LLVM).

However, the graph of syn-1.0.89 tells us a slightly different story:

I'm willing to chalk this up to measurement noise.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged
(again)