mir-opt: Do not create storage marks in EarlyOtherwiseBranch

[dianqk]

Fixes #141212.

The first commit add StorageDead by creating new indirect BB that makes CFG more complicated, but I think it's better to just not create storage marks.

r? mir-opt

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 8c7faa6 with merge 26a3bb5...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 26a3bb5 (26a3bb52c9ec74248edb6096a8ed75f76e4db99d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (26a3bb5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -2.8%)

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

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 776.359s -> 778.13s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 366.28 MiB -> 366.27 MiB (-0.00%)

[dianqk]

r? mir-opt

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 8c7faa6 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8c7faa6 with merge c6a9554...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing c6a9554 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 100199c (parent) -> c6a9554 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard c6a955468b025dbe3d1de3e8f3e30496d1fb7f40 --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-apple: 4724.6s -> 6292.1s (33.2%)
2. x86_64-apple-2: 5136.4s -> 4095.9s (-20.3%)
3. dist-apple-various: 8142.3s -> 6862.4s (-15.7%)
4. dist-x86_64-mingw: 7298.7s -> 8267.9s (13.3%)
5. mingw-check-1: 1928.3s -> 1672.4s (-13.3%)
6. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 3659.1s -> 3198.6s (-12.6%)
7. i686-gnu-1: 8237.9s -> 7357.2s (-10.7%)
8. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 7976.2s -> 7146.8s (-10.4%)
9. i686-gnu-2: 6039.2s -> 5443.5s (-9.9%)
10. aarch64-apple: 4059.4s -> 4459.1s (9.8%)

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 (c6a9554): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.5%)

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)	-7.9%	[-7.9%, -7.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.4%, 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)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.0%, 0.7%]	2

Bootstrap: 755.155s -> 754.321s (-0.11%)
Artifact size: 372.17 MiB -> 372.15 MiB (-0.01%)