Re-add call site inlining attributes

[saethlin]

This clearly needs some refactoring but for now I just want to see if this inverts the perf change from #156242.

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: fe957f6 (fe957f683d45caec986ad1ecb6eece99c1564726, parent: 54333ff079780f803f65dcee30c544050b35f544)

[RalfJung]

(for when this leaves draft status) It'd probably be good to also add a comment here giving some context :)

View changes since the review

[saethlin]

Added a little comment. Wasn't sure if I wanted to say "this is a regression test for X"

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fe957f6): 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)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	68
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.5%, -0.2%]	36
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, 0.4%]	70

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 0.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.6%	[2.0%, 8.6%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.7%, 2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-8.4%	[-8.4%, -8.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[-8.4%, 8.6%]	4

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: 510.282s -> 511.641s (0.27%)
Artifact size: 400.55 MiB -> 400.59 MiB (0.01%)

[saethlin]

r? dianqk

[rustbot]

r? @JohnTitor

rustbot has assigned @JohnTitor.
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 18 candidates

[saethlin]

Also I think it is very odd that we are blindly setting the call site attributes to the same as the definition, because I think the point of the call site attributes is to differentiate between calls. Probably worth looking into later, but for now I think we should just be fixing the accidental change.