Use trunc nuw+br for 0/1 branches even in optimized builds

[scottmcm]

Rather than needing to use switch for them to include the unreachable arm.

[rustbot]

r? @fmease

rustbot has assigned @fmease.
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

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e2a49e2 with merge 7378225...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7378225 (7378225ed3ff6442950692726862cbb43d07ae22)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7378225): 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.2%, -0.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-1.0%, 0.8%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.9%)

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.2%, -2.0%]	3
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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	16
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, -0.0%]	46
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	38
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, 0.1%]	62

Bootstrap: 770.364s -> 772.161s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 359.79 MiB -> 359.76 MiB (-0.01%)

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit eac436b with merge 0850e39...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0850e39 (0850e39af62daf161b3e6e275aa6daab98868634)

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e2a49e2 with merge df1b256...

[scottmcm]

@bors r=saethlin

[bors]

📌 Commit 5a982e7 has been approved by saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5a982e7 with merge 3b9c16f...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa

cc @WaffleLapkin

[scottmcm]

@bors r=saethlin

[bors]

📌 Commit d9432ac has been approved by saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d9432ac with merge efea989...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: saethlin
Pushing efea989 to master...

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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

gh pr comment ${HEAD_PR} -F output.log
shell: /usr/bin/bash -e {0}
##[endgroup]
fatal: ambiguous argument 'HEAD^1': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
##[error]Process completed with exit code 128.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (efea989): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	37
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.2%]	61
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.4%, -0.4%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.9%, 0.8%]	42

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -0.9%)

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)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, 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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	23
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.8%]	22
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, -0.0%]	35
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, 0.1%]	58

Bootstrap: 765.562s -> 765.938s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 362.12 MiB -> 362.04 MiB (-0.02%)