collect delayed lints in hir_crate_items

[jdonszelmann]

r? @oli-obk

Attempt to mitigate perf problems in #138164

[jdonszelmann]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 6f5a717 with merge 437cd00...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 437cd00 (437cd0066d76142190dee1c502aa6e12d2212196)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (437cd00): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	101
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-2.5%, -0.2%]	53
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	101

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.6%, secondary -3.7%)

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)	2.7%	[2.6%, 2.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-6.6%, -0.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.2%	[-11.5%, -1.8%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-6.6%, -0.8%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary -1.4%, secondary -1.8%)

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)	2.2%	[2.1%, 2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.5%, -1.4%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 754.993s -> 757.521s (0.33%)
Artifact size: 372.27 MiB -> 372.22 MiB (-0.01%)

[jdonszelmann]

Well, it looks like that helps a bit

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 6f5a717 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jdonszelmann]

Not quite sure it's all of it but it seems like a good change @oli?

[jdonszelmann]

Ah, already r plussed ,Ty :3

[jdonszelmann]

oh sorry oli, meant to ping the other one hehe

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6f5a717 with merge 586ad39...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 586ad39 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 7827d55 (parent) -> 586ad39 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 586ad391f5ee4519acc7cae340e34673bae762b1 --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-apple-various: 5361.8s -> 7570.7s (41.2%)
2. dist-aarch64-linux: 8110.4s -> 5825.5s (-28.2%)
3. x86_64-apple-1: 8745.3s -> 7139.5s (-18.4%)
4. aarch64-apple: 4629.8s -> 5308.6s (14.7%)
5. dist-ohos-armv7: 4334.7s -> 3826.7s (-11.7%)
6. x86_64-apple-2: 5562.3s -> 6068.7s (9.1%)
7. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 5692.3s -> 6195.0s (8.8%)
8. dist-ohos-x86_64: 4496.0s -> 4107.0s (-8.7%)
9. dist-powerpc64le-linux-musl: 5442.7s -> 5041.5s (-7.4%)
10. mingw-check-2: 2104.3s -> 1951.5s (-7.3%)

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 (586ad39): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	87
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-2.5%, -0.1%]	42
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	87

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.5%, secondary -3.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.6%	[1.6%, 1.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[3.8%, 3.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-7.3%, -0.5%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.4%	[-12.4%, -0.9%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-7.3%, 1.6%]	8

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.2%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-7.5%, -2.7%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 756.621s -> 755.712s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 372.05 MiB -> 372.06 MiB (0.00%)

[jdonszelmann]

that seems to have done a lot of it