Shrink ast::Expr to 88 bytes

[nnethercote]

r? @petrochenkov

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[nnethercote]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3bcd096 with merge 4bb8c49371480ef947f1894b7a555bad587750e6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4bb8c49371480ef947f1894b7a555bad587750e6 (4bb8c49371480ef947f1894b7a555bad587750e6)

[rust-timer]

Queued 4bb8c49371480ef947f1894b7a555bad587750e6 with parent a37499a, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4bb8c49371480ef947f1894b7a555bad587750e6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.5%]	34
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	23
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.5%]	34

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.0%, 1.8%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.9%	[2.6%, 12.5%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.6%, -0.9%]	9
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-5.1%, -1.0%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-1.6%, 1.8%]	19

Cycles

Results

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-3.4%, -1.9%]	21
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[petrochenkov]

Blocking on an answer for #101562 (comment).

[nnethercote]

Now that #102944 has been merged, this is subsumed by #101562.