Enable ConstGoto and SeparateConstSwitch passes by default

[cjgillot]

These 2 passes implement a limited form of jump-threading.
Filing this PR to see if enabling them would be lighter than #107009.

[rustbot]

r? @jackh726

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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 84111f0156b3ee2c1d5fcfa3659321e20168d621 with merge a0b8ccf86d427629201b693b004b97b9319ba266...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a0b8ccf86d427629201b693b004b97b9319ba266 (a0b8ccf86d427629201b693b004b97b9319ba266)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a0b8ccf86d427629201b693b004b97b9319ba266): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.1%, -0.2%]	61
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.7%, -0.3%]	48
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.1%, 1.2%]	62

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)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-8.3%, -0.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.2%	[-8.3%, -0.1%]	2

Cycles

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)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	60
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.5%]	67

Bootstrap: 647.057s -> 645.545s (-0.23%)

[cjgillot]

r? wg-mir-opt

[spastorino]

r? wg-mir-opt

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f74695b has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f74695b with merge 789dd0b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 789dd0b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (789dd0b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.1%, -0.2%]	72
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-2.0%, -0.2%]	33
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.1%, 2.6%]	73

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)	4.8%	[4.6%, 5.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.5%, 3.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.9%	[-10.1%, -4.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-10.1%, 5.0%]	6

Cycles

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)	3.6%	[2.7%, 4.5%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[2.7%, 4.5%]	7

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	65
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.6%]	70

Bootstrap: 644.65s -> 645.554s (0.14%)

[lqd]

The improvements greatly outweigh the regression to me.

The ripgrep opt regression seems to be mostly in LLVM itself, which must be doing a bit more work than it did before (all over the place, InstCombine, computing known bits, etc).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged