Improve coding efficiency for RawDefId

[Mark-Simulacrum]

This copies the scheme already used for LazyArray, cutting a couple hundred kilobytes from libcore's metadata.

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

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

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2fec2d6 with merge f558900...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f558900 (f5589005ca3bd698a9d630b34026513e7c989c8a)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f558900): 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
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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

Cycles

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

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	113
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-1.3%, -0.0%]	33
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	113

Bootstrap: 674.597s -> 672.805s (-0.27%)
Artifact size: 312.79 MiB -> 312.73 MiB (-0.02%)

[TaKO8Ki]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 2fec2d6 has been approved by TaKO8Ki

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2fec2d6 with merge 296c370...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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

[cjgillot]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2fec2d6 with merge 71696e5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: TaKO8Ki
Pushing 71696e5 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (71696e5): comparison URL.

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

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)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	113
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.3%, -0.0%]	29
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.0%, -0.0%]	113

Bootstrap: 667.944s -> 670.163s (0.33%)
Artifact size: 312.62 MiB -> 312.56 MiB (-0.02%)