Always run tail_expr_drop_order lint in promoted MIR query

[compiler-errors]

Rather than running the lint at the beginning of mir_drops_elaborated_and_const_checked, run it at the end of mir_promoted. This should ensure that the lint gets picked up when running cargo fix, which runs with --emit metadata and therefore doesn't actually query mir_drops_elaborated_and_const_checked.

We could probably push this down into mir_built too? but I don't really see a good reason to do so.

#132861 (comment)

cc @ehuss

[rustbot]

r? @cjgillot

rustbot has assigned @cjgillot.
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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[compiler-errors]

A build-fail became a check-fail, which is evidence enough of this being a sufficient fix.

[compiler-errors]

Duplicated attr errors is due to a call to lints_that_dont_need_to_run in check-builds. This is deduplicated to the user, so it doesn't matter.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[lqd]

bors doesn’t seem to like a couple of errs PRs smh

@bors ping

[bors]

😪 I'm awake I'm awake

[lqd]

@bors try

[lqd]

Reopening to try and fix bors

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[Kobzol]

@bors try

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[Kobzol]

Homu probably got wind of our attempts to get rid of him and is protesting.

[Kobzol]

@bors try

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b58df10): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.6%, 2.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.6%, 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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-3.3%, -2.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.2%)

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 767.394s -> 767.368s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 330.38 MiB -> 330.94 MiB (0.17%)

[compiler-errors]

I don't believe this is significant enough to warrant a fix.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 8ccdd12 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8ccdd12 with merge e801bfe...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b893221 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b893221 with merge 65fe42a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 65fe42a to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (65fe42a): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary -1.8%)

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)	3.7%	[3.7%, 3.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-3.7%, -2.1%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.5%)

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)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 763.421s -> 763.437s (0.00%)
Artifact size: 330.54 MiB -> 330.62 MiB (0.02%)