Also hash spans inside the same file as relative.

[cjgillot]

Spans that have a parent and that are contained in that parent are hashed as relative to the start position of their parent.

This works well for function bodies, but does not handle attributes.

This PR proposes to extend relative hashing when the span and the parent are in the same file.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3a47352 with merge df67202...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: df67202 (df6720223021f98b2dc8ea94b69f1991f056f3bf)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3481584 with merge 5426bf8...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5426bf8 (5426bf86cd14955ed64c175a325655d9b0b3f691)

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0dddae1 with merge 9b70448...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9b70448 (9b704482b8f77bc0b05b3cad1e80cb11fe41e40f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9b70448): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	35
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-6.1%	[-12.6%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-12.6%, 0.3%]	35

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 4.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.8%	[0.7%, 2.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-1.7%, 2.8%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary -9.8%, secondary -3.9%)

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)	-9.8%	[-10.6%, -9.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.5%, -3.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-9.8%	[-10.6%, -9.3%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 465.532s -> 464.536s (-0.21%)
Artifact size: 374.73 MiB -> 374.69 MiB (-0.01%)

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 799e1d0 with merge bdb34d2…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: bdb34d2 (bdb34d2c3aeba2b1d165de07937123e48da56e22, parent: f34ba774c78ea32b7c40598b8ad23e75cdac42a6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bdb34d2): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	29
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-6.3%	[-12.9%, -0.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-1.0%, -0.8%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-12.9%, 0.2%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.5%, secondary 4.7%)

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)	4.7%	[2.8%, 7.5%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-2.0%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-2.0%, -0.4%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary -6.8%, 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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-6.8%	[-12.0%, -2.1%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.3%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-6.8%	[-12.0%, -2.1%]	6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 467.629s -> 467.604s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 376.97 MiB -> 376.96 MiB (-0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

sorry i dont have the time to review this, perhaps petrochenkov has feelings about this? or re-roll

r? petrochenkov

[petrochenkov]

I also have mixed feelings.
Could we perhaps land the general optimizations and refactorings from this PR first, and then reconsider the main functional change?
@rustbot author

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145600) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different master 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.