pre-intern single-letter sym::[a-zA-Z]

[GrigorenkoPV]

As suggested in #152624 (comment).

Needs a perf run I guess.

[rustbot]

r? @jdonszelmann

rustbot has assigned @jdonszelmann.
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 68 candidates
• Random selection from 15 candidates

[GrigorenkoPV]

Eh, typo. Will fix later.

[GrigorenkoPV]

Not sure if I have enough rights, but let's try the magic spell

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

@GrigorenkoPV: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 09623a8 (09623a861acf5ebfb89c93a6a60a1c931156ddb3, parent: 99246f40931ce1d1d29517b61bd70dd9ed4fbe5d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (09623a8): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary -2.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-4.9%, -1.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.0%)

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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	16
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	16

Bootstrap: 482.582s -> 480.846s (-0.36%)
Artifact size: 397.92 MiB -> 397.93 MiB (0.00%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

The perf regression is most likely noise, so perf looks good
@rustbot author, ci is failing

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[GrigorenkoPV]

I simply blessed the tests. IDK if these changes are acceptable or should warrant more investigation.

@rustbot ready

[JonathanBrouwer]

I would like to at least understand why the stderrs changed, I don't see an obvious explanation for this

[Kivooeo]

I don't see an obvious explanation for this

this is more correct now, well, more consistent maybe is the better word, it seems like the suggestion broke ties between equally-similar candidates by picking the lowest symbol index, and c was suggested because it had a lower assign index than a or b which wasn't in symbols! table at all

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors r+ rollup=never
Rollup=never for performance

View changes since this review

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit a5e6ccc has been approved by JonathanBrouwer

It is now in the queue for this repository.