#[inline] non-generic pub fns in rustc_target::abi and ty::layout.

[eddyb]

Mostly doing this as a perf curiosity, having spotted that #[inline] usage is a bit spotty.

[rust-highfive]

r? @oli-obk

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[eddyb]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 94b11f66fa9b994d0f3be4b7807f1bc6e364edde with merge 54d4ab1b221a642ac4dd0be99a815d0061126a41...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 54d4ab1b221a642ac4dd0be99a815d0061126a41 (54d4ab1b221a642ac4dd0be99a815d0061126a41)

[rust-timer]

Queued 54d4ab1b221a642ac4dd0be99a815d0061126a41 with parent 9863bf5, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking try commit (54d4ab1b221a642ac4dd0be99a815d0061126a41): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to moderate relevant improvements 🎉 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -1.8% on full builds of ctfe-stress-4)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 94b11f66fa9b994d0f3be4b7807f1bc6e364edde has been approved by oli-obk

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #88308) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[eddyb]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit efb4148 has been approved by oli-obk

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit efb4148 with merge dfd6306...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing dfd6306 to master...

[eddyb]

Looks like the perf run after landing was a bit of a wash, I wonder if #88308 made it harder to have improvements in layout-adjacent code.