Hash full Ident (including Span) in AssocItem

[Aaron1011]

No description provided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Aaron1011]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3803582 with merge d68d83764fcafa57dd3f20ab7b1c6241c4afb833...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d68d83764fcafa57dd3f20ab7b1c6241c4afb833 (d68d83764fcafa57dd3f20ab7b1c6241c4afb833)

[rust-timer]

Queued d68d83764fcafa57dd3f20ab7b1c6241c4afb833 with parent 124555a, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d68d83764fcafa57dd3f20ab7b1c6241c4afb833): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to large relevant regressions 😿 in compiler performance.

• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 2.7% on incr-patched: minor change builds of tokio-webpush-simple)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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

[cjgillot]

Would the trick from #92533 work here, or is it too heavy a change?

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r? @cjgillot (or someone else familiar enough to review this)

[Aaron1011]

Would the trick from #92533 work here, or is it too heavy a change?

I started working on that when I was writing this PR, but it was turning into a fair amount of work. I'll see if I can get it compiling

[Aaron1011]

We went with #93095 instead