Re-add call site inlining attributes

[saethlin]

It is very odd that we are blindly setting the call site attributes to the same as the definition, because I think the point of the call site attributes is to differentiate between calls. Probably worth looking into later, but for now I think we should just be undoing the change we made by mistake.

This fixes the accidental regression from #156242

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: fe957f6 (fe957f683d45caec986ad1ecb6eece99c1564726, parent: 54333ff079780f803f65dcee30c544050b35f544)

[RalfJung]

(for when this leaves draft status) It'd probably be good to also add a comment here giving some context :)

View changes since the review

[saethlin]

Added a little comment. Wasn't sure if I wanted to say "this is a regression test for X"

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fe957f6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@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)	0.4%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, -0.2%]	68
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.5%, -0.2%]	36
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, 0.4%]	70

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 0.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.6%	[2.0%, 8.6%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.7%, 2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-8.4%	[-8.4%, -8.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[-8.4%, 8.6%]	4

Cycles

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: 510.282s -> 511.641s (0.27%)
Artifact size: 400.55 MiB -> 400.59 MiB (0.01%)

[saethlin]

r? dianqk

[rustbot]

r? @JohnTitor

rustbot has assigned @JohnTitor.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 73 candidates
• Random selection from 18 candidates

[saethlin]

Also I think it is very odd that we are blindly setting the call site attributes to the same as the definition, because I think the point of the call site attributes is to differentiate between calls. Probably worth looking into later, but for now I think we should just be fixing the accidental change.

[dianqk]

LGTM

View changes since this review

[dianqk]

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit adbf6f5 has been approved by dianqk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: dianqk
Duration: 3h 15m
Pushing 1d59f66 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing a06c1ca (parent) -> 1d59f66 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 5 test diffs

Stage 1

• [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/call-site-inline-attributes.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Stage 2

• [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/call-site-inline-attributes.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Additionally, 3 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: pr-check-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3
• J1: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 1d59f669f9c699b982f112ebbc81e8b1eb550d68 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. i686-msvc-1: 1h 40m -> 2h 51m (+70.4%)
2. x86_64-msvc-ext3: 1h 11m -> 1h 52m (+57.9%)
3. i686-gnu-nopt-2: 1h 44m -> 2h 19m (+34.0%)
4. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 48m 18s -> 1h 4m (+33.6%)
5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2: 1h 38m -> 1h 10m (-27.7%)
6. x86_64-msvc-1: 2h 3m -> 2h 34m (+25.4%)
7. i686-msvc-2: 1h 39m -> 2h 3m (+24.6%)
8. dist-i686-linux: 1h 48m -> 1h 24m (-22.2%)
9. dist-aarch64-apple: 2h 5m -> 1h 38m (-21.5%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-1: 1h 7m -> 53m 28s (-21.1%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1d59f66): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

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

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	66
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	42
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, 0.4%]	68

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.1%, secondary 0.4%)

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)	5.0%	[3.6%, 6.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-6.2%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 2.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-2.4%, 5.3%]	3

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 511.447s -> 510.511s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 400.68 MiB -> 400.71 MiB (0.01%)

[saethlin]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

Perf impact is the inverse of the PR linked in the description, within typical jitter. The net effect of the two PRs is nothing.