resolve: Try removing questionable optimizations in eff vis computation

[petrochenkov]

No description provided.

[rustbot]

r? @folkertdev

rustbot has assigned @folkertdev.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 73 candidates
• Random selection from 19 candidates

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b88d160 (b88d160c3a88b6a02a3856463a035a8b334c6f57, parent: 4feb7221f4d445120a5061b16ce7222adbfdf6f6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b88d160): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@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)	1.3%	[0.2%, 5.4%]	22
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[0.1%, 4.4%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-0.3%, 5.4%]	30

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.7%, secondary -0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[1.5%, 3.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.0%, 1.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[-2.1%, 3.2%]	5

Cycles

Results (primary 3.5%, secondary 1.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.7%	[2.5%, 6.0%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[0.7%, 3.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.5%	[-2.2%, 6.0%]	6

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 495.518s -> 495.363s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 394.42 MiB -> 394.49 MiB (0.02%)

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: c8a08c2 (c8a08c2ec1a7e9eedcf642d7b2efdb85f4b915e9, parent: 4feb7221f4d445120a5061b16ce7222adbfdf6f6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c8a08c2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing 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)	-2.1%	[-8.8%, -0.2%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.5%, -0.3%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-8.8%, -0.2%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary -1.5%)

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)	1.3%	[0.6%, 2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.2%, -2.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-7.8%, -0.5%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.2%, -2.1%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 1.4%, secondary 9.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.7%	[2.1%, 7.9%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	15.8%	[0.5%, 49.0%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-7.7%	[-8.4%, -7.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-3.4%, -0.9%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-8.4%, 7.9%]	15

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 495.518s -> 495.116s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 394.42 MiB -> 394.42 MiB (-0.00%)

[petrochenkov]

What's going on with cycles for tt-muncher though.