Revert "Rollup merge of #149147 - chenyukang:yukang-fix-unused_assignments-macro-gen-147648, r=JonathanBrouwer"

[Kobzol]

This reverts commit 82a17b3, reversing
changes made to 5019bda.

Reverts #149147 due to a perf regression.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[rustbot]

r? @chenyukang

rustbot has assigned @chenyukang.
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

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• There are issue links (such as #123) in the commit messages of the following commits.
  Please move them to the PR description, to avoid spamming the issues with references to the commit, and so this bot can automatically canonicalize them to avoid issues with subtree.
  • 7438715

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[JonathanBrouwer]

See the speculation here about the cause of the perf regression: #t-compiler/backports > #149147: beta-nominated @ 💬

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9177f5d (9177f5d3c07dcb13c83a8b8fe4a0952683609291, parent: 29e035e1728488dce5a03daa527ab1091d1cda47)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9177f5d): 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.4%	[-20.0%, -0.1%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -11.0%)

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)	-11.0%	[-16.1%, -2.7%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -15.8%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-15.8%	[-29.6%, -3.0%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 470.646s -> 470.526s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 386.77 MiB -> 386.76 MiB (-0.00%)

[Kobzol]

r? jonathanbrouwer

[rustbot]

jonathanbrouwer is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

[chenyukang]

@bors r=chenyukang

[bors]

📌 Commit 7438715 has been approved by chenyukang

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7438715 with merge b691286...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7438715 with merge a8dd012...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[rust-log-analyzer]

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

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

[Kobzol]

Seems like some AWS CodeBuild issues?

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7438715 with merge 1c5a0cf...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: chenyukang
Pushing 1c5a0cf to main...

[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 d427ddf (parent) -> 1c5a0cf (this PR)

Test differences

Show 4 test diffs

Stage 1

• [ui] tests/ui/liveness/unused-assignments-from-macro-147648.rs: pass -> [missing] (J1)

Stage 2

• [ui] tests/ui/liveness/unused-assignments-from-macro-147648.rs: pass -> [missing] (J0)

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

Job group index

• J0: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-debug, x86_64-gnu-gcc, x86_64-gnu-llvm-20, x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1
• J1: x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 1c5a0cfc13559b863b47b64b51429360fe55ef73 --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: 3382.7s -> 4144.5s (+22.5%)
2. pr-check-1: 1976.3s -> 1566.1s (-20.8%)
3. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 3070.9s -> 2544.1s (-17.2%)
4. aarch64-apple: 9139.1s -> 7907.0s (-13.5%)
5. i686-gnu-2: 6213.2s -> 5410.4s (-12.9%)
6. x86_64-gnu-tools: 3615.5s -> 3162.0s (-12.5%)
7. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3416.8s -> 3027.8s (-11.4%)
8. i686-gnu-1: 8256.5s -> 7470.2s (-9.5%)
9. x86_64-msvc-1: 8292.2s -> 9023.2s (+8.8%)
10. arm-android: 6197.6s -> 5657.3s (-8.7%)

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 (1c5a0cf): 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.0%	[-20.0%, -0.6%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -13.3%)

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)	-13.3%	[-16.6%, -9.5%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -18.7%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-18.7%	[-28.7%, -6.9%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 471.992s -> 470.408s (-0.34%)
Artifact size: 388.94 MiB -> 388.91 MiB (-0.01%)

[mockersf]

This PR reverted #149147 due to a perf regression.
#149147 is in the 1.93 but this one is in the 1.94.

Should it be backported?

[apiraino]

Beta backport accepted as per compiler team on Zulip. A backport PR will be authored by the release team at the end of the current development cycle. Backport labels handled by them.

@rustbot label +beta-accepted