[experiment] dont init anything except x86

[klensy]

What if do not init all llvm targets always? Maybe fix regression in #134740

r? @ghost
@rustbot label +S-experimental

btw, here

rust/compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/PassWrapper.cpp

Lines 81 to 186 in c182ce9

	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_X86
	#define SUBTARGET_X86 SUBTARGET(X86)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_X86
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_ARM
	#define SUBTARGET_ARM SUBTARGET(ARM)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_ARM
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_AARCH64
	#define SUBTARGET_AARCH64 SUBTARGET(AArch64)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_AARCH64
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_AVR
	#define SUBTARGET_AVR SUBTARGET(AVR)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_AVR
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_M68k
	#define SUBTARGET_M68K SUBTARGET(M68k)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_M68K
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_CSKY
	#define SUBTARGET_CSKY SUBTARGET(CSKY)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_CSKY
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_MIPS
	#define SUBTARGET_MIPS SUBTARGET(Mips)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_MIPS
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_POWERPC
	#define SUBTARGET_PPC SUBTARGET(PPC)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_PPC
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_SYSTEMZ
	#define SUBTARGET_SYSTEMZ SUBTARGET(SystemZ)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_SYSTEMZ
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_MSP430
	#define SUBTARGET_MSP430 SUBTARGET(MSP430)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_MSP430
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_RISCV
	#define SUBTARGET_RISCV SUBTARGET(RISCV)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_RISCV
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_SPARC
	#define SUBTARGET_SPARC SUBTARGET(Sparc)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_SPARC
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_XTENSA
	#define SUBTARGET_XTENSA SUBTARGET(XTENSA)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_XTENSA
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_HEXAGON
	#define SUBTARGET_HEXAGON SUBTARGET(Hexagon)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_HEXAGON
	#endif
	#ifdef LLVM_COMPONENT_LOONGARCH
	#define SUBTARGET_LOONGARCH SUBTARGET(LoongArch)
	#else
	#define SUBTARGET_LOONGARCH
	#endif
	#define GEN_SUBTARGETS \
	SUBTARGET_X86 \
	SUBTARGET_ARM \
	SUBTARGET_AARCH64 \
	SUBTARGET_AVR \
	SUBTARGET_M68K \
	SUBTARGET_CSKY \
	SUBTARGET_MIPS \
	SUBTARGET_PPC \
	SUBTARGET_SYSTEMZ \
	SUBTARGET_MSP430 \
	SUBTARGET_SPARC \
	SUBTARGET_HEXAGON \
	SUBTARGET_XTENSA \
	SUBTARGET_RISCV \
	SUBTARGET_LOONGARCH

similar list for targets, but it missing amdgpu. Is amdgpu works without it?

kick perf run please

[workingjubilee]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit c58430b with merge 48765f4...

[workingjubilee]

well the current diff is definitely not going to be something we can ship

[workingjubilee]

still kinda curious to see how it plays out though.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 48765f4 (48765f490fe344fa602f45121f9bb5b057065fd7)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (48765f4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 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%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.0%, -0.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-0.9%, -0.0%]	15
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.0%, -0.3%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary -3.1%)

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)	2.8%	[1.4%, 3.7%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.2%, 2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-7.6%, -2.0%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[1.4%, 3.7%]	3

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: 785.339s -> 786.007s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 348.32 MiB -> 348.18 MiB (-0.04%)

[apiraino]

Hi @klensy how is this experiment progressing? 🙂 Switching to waiting on author to comment on the perf run and CI failure. Feel free to request a review with @rustbot ready, thanks!

@rustbot author