Deduce readonly attribute for !Freeze arguments

[tmiasko]

r? @ghost

[tmiasko]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d24d620 with merge fdf3f4f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fdf3f4f (fdf3f4f9a8ea7755ce40c377edcb36f40ada2b5e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fdf3f4f): comparison URL.

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

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 1.0%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.0%, secondary -2.8%)

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)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -4.2%)

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%)

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

Bootstrap: 765.289s -> 765.037s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 362.07 MiB -> 362.00 MiB (-0.02%)

[tmiasko]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 04567c3 with merge efab2e4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: efab2e4 (efab2e47ecf0efba60eb1ead63bfe7a903b6fc0d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (efab2e4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 3.1%)

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)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.1%)

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
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-4.1%, -4.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.0%)

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%, 0.1%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	7

Bootstrap: 765.734s -> 764.845s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 362.10 MiB -> 362.10 MiB (-0.00%)

[tmiasko]

A perf experiment that removes deduction altogether:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7edf3b8 with merge cf61206...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: cf61206 (cf61206c2d5c3568d8728e21a7efa30bec0f8aec)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cf61206): comparison URL.

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

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.6%)

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%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -1.6%)

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-9.0%	[-9.0%, -9.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.5%, secondary -0.1%)

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%, 0.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	37
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.7%, -0.1%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-2.3%, -0.0%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.7%, 0.1%]	19

Bootstrap: 769.881s -> 769.609s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 361.99 MiB -> 362.00 MiB (0.00%)

[tmiasko]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d5899d2 with merge 5f4e4e9...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job mingw-check-tidy failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

info: removing rustup binaries
info: rustup is uninstalled
##[group]Image checksum input
mingw-check-tidy
# We use the ghcr base image because ghcr doesn't have a rate limit
# and the mingw-check-tidy job doesn't cache docker images in CI.
FROM ghcr.io/rust-lang/ubuntu:22.04

ARG DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive
RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends \
  g++ \
  make \
---

COPY host-x86_64/mingw-check/validate-toolstate.sh /scripts/
COPY host-x86_64/mingw-check/validate-error-codes.sh /scripts/

# NOTE: intentionally uses python2 for x.py so we can test it still works.
# validate-toolstate only runs in our CI, so it's ok for it to only support python3.
ENV SCRIPT TIDY_PRINT_DIFF=1 python2.7 ../x.py test \
           --stage 0 src/tools/tidy tidyselftest --extra-checks=py,cpp
#
# This file is autogenerated by pip-compile with Python 3.10
# by the following command:
#
#    pip-compile --allow-unsafe --generate-hashes reuse-requirements.in
---
#12 2.895 Building wheels for collected packages: reuse
#12 2.897   Building wheel for reuse (pyproject.toml): started
#12 3.119   Building wheel for reuse (pyproject.toml): finished with status 'done'
#12 3.120   Created wheel for reuse: filename=reuse-4.0.3-cp310-cp310-manylinux_2_35_x86_64.whl size=132720 sha256=0c2fd2aaf7b0bf8d6e131220aff14712a774c2ca462f3204d25460cbcf610b63
#12 3.120   Stored in directory: /tmp/pip-ephem-wheel-cache-uu7nzfy8/wheels/3d/8d/0a/e0fc6aba4494b28a967ab5eaf951c121d9c677958714e34532
#12 3.123 Successfully built reuse
#12 3.123 Installing collected packages: boolean-py, binaryornot, tomlkit, reuse, python-debian, markupsafe, license-expression, jinja2, chardet, attrs
#12 3.515 Successfully installed attrs-23.2.0 binaryornot-0.4.4 boolean-py-4.0 chardet-5.2.0 jinja2-3.1.4 license-expression-30.3.0 markupsafe-2.1.5 python-debian-0.1.49 reuse-4.0.3 tomlkit-0.13.0
#12 3.515 WARNING: Running pip as the 'root' user can result in broken permissions and conflicting behaviour with the system package manager. It is recommended to use a virtual environment instead: https://pip.pypa.io/warnings/venv
#12 4.061 Collecting virtualenv
#12 4.111   Downloading virtualenv-20.29.3-py3-none-any.whl (4.3 MB)
#12 4.270      ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 4.3/4.3 MB 27.4 MB/s eta 0:00:00
#12 4.314 Collecting distlib<1,>=0.3.7
#12 4.322   Downloading distlib-0.3.9-py2.py3-none-any.whl (468 kB)
#12 4.334      ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 469.0/469.0 KB 45.5 MB/s eta 0:00:00
#12 4.373 Collecting filelock<4,>=3.12.2
#12 4.380   Downloading filelock-3.17.0-py3-none-any.whl (16 kB)
#12 4.421 Collecting platformdirs<5,>=3.9.1
#12 4.430   Downloading platformdirs-4.3.6-py3-none-any.whl (18 kB)
#12 4.512 Installing collected packages: distlib, platformdirs, filelock, virtualenv
#12 4.694 Successfully installed distlib-0.3.9 filelock-3.17.0 platformdirs-4.3.6 virtualenv-20.29.3
#12 4.694 WARNING: Running pip as the 'root' user can result in broken permissions and conflicting behaviour with the system package manager. It is recommended to use a virtual environment instead: https://pip.pypa.io/warnings/venv
#12 DONE 4.8s

#13 [7/8] COPY host-x86_64/mingw-check/validate-toolstate.sh /scripts/
#13 DONE 0.0s
---
DirectMap4k:      133056 kB
DirectMap2M:     8255488 kB
DirectMap1G:    10485760 kB
##[endgroup]
Executing TIDY_PRINT_DIFF=1 python2.7 ../x.py test            --stage 0 src/tools/tidy tidyselftest --extra-checks=py,cpp
+ TIDY_PRINT_DIFF=1 python2.7 ../x.py test --stage 0 src/tools/tidy tidyselftest --extra-checks=py,cpp
##[group]Building bootstrap
    Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized] target(s) in 0.05s
##[endgroup]
WARN: currently no CI rustc builds have rustc debug assertions enabled. Please either set `rust.debug-assertions` to `false` if you want to use download CI rustc or set `rust.download-rustc` to `false`.
downloading https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/2025-02-18/rustfmt-nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
---
Diff in /checkout/compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/copy_args.rs:17:
                         if place.is_indirect() {
                             continue;
                         }
-                        let Some(local) = place.as_local() else {
-                            continue
-                        };
+                        let Some(local) = place.as_local() else { continue };
                         if 1 <= local.index() && local.index() <= body.arg_count {
                             arg.node = Operand::Copy(place);
                         }
fmt: checked 5893 files
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:01:19
  local time: Mon Mar 10 19:54:50 UTC 2025
  network time: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:54:50 GMT

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5f4e4e9 (5f4e4e9539cbbdf47044c908459f76f253513bca)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5f4e4e9): comparison URL.

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

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 2.4%]	35
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	38
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-9.6%, -0.2%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-9.6%, 2.4%]	45

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.7%, secondary -2.4%)

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)	5.9%	[2.8%, 8.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.7%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.7%	[-2.8%, 8.4%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary -9.6%, secondary 2.1%)

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-9.6%	[-9.6%, -9.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-9.6%	[-9.6%, -9.6%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary -0.1%)

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%, 0.6%]	28
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.3%, -0.0%]	36
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.3%, 0.6%]	64

Bootstrap: 779.823s -> 776.74s (-0.40%)
Artifact size: 365.18 MiB -> 365.08 MiB (-0.03%)