Add cache to FoldEscapingRegions

[compiler-errors]

Fixes #135780

ty @lqd for the tests

[rustbot]

r? @lcnr

rustbot has assigned @lcnr.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[lcnr]

this hanged in a check build?

[compiler-errors]

whoops, build-pass 💀

[lqd]

IIRC it was a cute: check-pass but build-fail

[compiler-errors]

whoopsy didn't catch the ci failure

[lcnr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

r=me after nit + perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 433a4a3 with merge f154317...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f154317 (f154317745b2349ce851b47fc725d78675892da5)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f154317): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.2%, secondary -3.5%)

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)	7.2%	[7.2%, 7.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[-0.9%, 7.2%]	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: 764.449s -> 764.76s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 326.06 MiB -> 326.05 MiB (-0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit aa15ea2 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit aa15ea2 with merge 4a926fa...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit d7a6fdc has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d7a6fdc with merge f85c6de...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing f85c6de to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f85c6de): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.7%)

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)	1.7%	[1.1%, 2.0%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[1.1%, 2.0%]	5

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: 773.224s -> 773.35s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 328.21 MiB -> 328.15 MiB (-0.02%)