Remove boxes from ast list elements

[camsteffen]

Less indirection should be better perf.

[rustbot]

r? @spastorino

rustbot has assigned @spastorino.
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]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/autodiff.rs

cc @ZuseZ4

[petrochenkov]

Indirection is removed, but expansion may now do more work to box the stuff and then unbox it again.
@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: cd2fe74 (cd2fe744675bd21a03fe74405a44184f1dbf682e, parent: ad85bc524b1ad696e42061ad8338d382dffbdbe5)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cd2fe74): comparison URL.

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

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.1%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary -2.9%)

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)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-3.2%, -2.6%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	2.6%	[2.2%, 3.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[1.6%, 1.6%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 467.829s -> 467.149s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 390.58 MiB -> 390.60 MiB (0.00%)

[camsteffen]

Seems neutral/mixed with a bit of max RSS improvements?

[camsteffen]

Moved a Box::new to try and fix regressions. Profiling shows the regressions are in parse_param_general::{closure#0}.

[ZuseZ4]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 4c3b5d3 (4c3b5d3811bd68ed990231b0dcfaad8b5ab255af, parent: 1ed3cd7030718935a5c5e5c8f6581f36d8be179f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4c3b5d3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	19
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	22
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary -2.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-3.4%, -0.7%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 465.747s -> 468.049s (0.49%)
Artifact size: 387.43 MiB -> 387.47 MiB (0.01%)

[camsteffen]

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.