Use features() over features_untracked() where possible

[fmease]

Resolver has a TyCtxt nowadays.

@rustbot label C-cleanup

[rustbot]

r? @compiler-errors

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

[compiler-errors]

I think @petrochenkov tried this but it was a perf regression? On my phone so I can't find the PR in question.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 716a09549e9e4015ae605c2220ac34aa2a86d52a with merge 969887f3981974adab5bf940bfc43cbc264528e5...

[compiler-errors]

edit: Oh, this is a much smaller PR than the whatever PR I am remembering. This is probably fine? I'll see what perf says, r=me if it comes back clean.

[fmease]

Just a smol cleanup ^o^

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 969887f3981974adab5bf940bfc43cbc264528e5 (969887f3981974adab5bf940bfc43cbc264528e5)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (969887f3981974adab5bf940bfc43cbc264528e5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	3

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1

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)	7.3%	[6.8%, 7.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 650.262s -> 652.854s (0.40%)

[petrochenkov]

I think @petrochenkov tried this but it was a perf regression?

I tried to replace metadata accesses (CStore) with queries, I didn't try it with Session methods.

[compiler-errors]

Right, that was me misremembering.

As for this regression, I feel like it's just noise.

[fmease]

Hmm, maybe it's just noise, maybe it isn't. Regressions happened in incremental scenarios (esp. in incr_comp_persist_dep_graph), so it seems related to my changes.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2a75a0f with merge 2a85d65f2f9e46273748c491073a3bfc387bd5d7...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2a85d65f2f9e46273748c491073a3bfc387bd5d7 (2a85d65f2f9e46273748c491073a3bfc387bd5d7)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2a85d65f2f9e46273748c491073a3bfc387bd5d7): 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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.3%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	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)	1.6%	[1.4%, 1.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[1.4%, 1.7%]	2

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: 651.047s -> 650.847s (-0.03%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 2a75a0f has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2a75a0f with merge cec34a4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing cec34a4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cec34a4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.6%, -0.3%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	2

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)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1

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)	13.1%	[10.5%, 15.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 651.296s -> 649.684s (-0.25%)