Create an AllocId for ConstValue::Slice.

[cjgillot]

r? @ghost

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 334753f with merge 9ef21e1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9ef21e1 (9ef21e1d83c6c9220b072fd1a4f225949514cc28)

[RalfJung]

How does this differ from the almost identical perf experiment I did a few weeks ago? Here are the perf results.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9ef21e1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[0.4%, 7.7%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	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)	1.5%	[0.9%, 2.2%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[0.8%, 14.5%]	17
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.3%	[-10.2%, -0.9%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-1.6%, 2.2%]	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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	7.0%	[2.1%, 21.5%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	30
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.1%, 0.3%]	33

Bootstrap: 628.692s -> 625.904s (-0.44%)
Artifact size: 271.29 MiB -> 271.29 MiB (0.00%)

[cjgillot]

No real difference. I just couldn't find your version.
Now there is one.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e195fe8 with merge eafbd55...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: eafbd55 (eafbd55f7123e31b30c2f3224a91d6db75e48c3f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (eafbd55): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 1.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[0.2%, 7.8%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.2%, -1.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 1.8%]	4

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)	1.6%	[1.2%, 2.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[1.1%, 8.7%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-3.3%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.0%	[-9.9%, -1.0%]	19
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-3.3%, 2.1%]	5

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	8.0%	[2.6%, 13.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	30
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.1%, 0.3%]	33

Bootstrap: 627.527s -> 627.366s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 271.26 MiB -> 271.31 MiB (0.02%)

[rust-log-analyzer]

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

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

## Running ui tests in tests/pass for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
   Compiler: "MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST"="0" "MIRI_TEMP"="/tmp/miri-uitest-d71RNK" "RUST_BACKTRACE"="1" /checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri "--error-format=json" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--out-dir" OUT_DIR

FAILED TEST: tests/pass/const-addrs.rs
command: MIRI_ENV_VAR_TEST="0" MIRI_TEMP="/tmp/miri-uitest-d71RNK" RUST_BACKTRACE="1" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/miri" "--error-format=json" "-Dwarnings" "-Dunused" "-Ainternal_features" "-Zui-testing" "--target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1-tools/ui/tests/pass" "tests/pass/const-addrs.rs" "-Zinline-mir=no" "--edition" "2021"
error: pass test got exit status: 101, but expected 0

error: actual output differed from expected
Execute `./miri test --bless` to update `tests/pass/const-addrs.stderr` to the actual output
---
Error: 
   0: ui tests in tests/pass for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu failed
   1: tests failed

Backtrace omitted. Run with RUST_BACKTRACE=1 environment variable to display it.
Run with RUST_BACKTRACE=full to include source snippets.
    tests/pass/const-addrs.rs

test result: FAIL. 1 failed; 334 passed; 4 ignored;