[PERF-EXPERIMENT] Add second span to a span

[petrochenkov]

cc #95580

[rustbot]

r? @WaffleLapkin

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b906c40 with merge e5e928e...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job mingw-check failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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

   --> src/tools/clippy/clippy_utils/src/macros.rs:433:9
    |
433 |       let SpanData {
    |  _________^
434 | |         lo,
435 | |         hi,
436 | |         ctxt,
437 | |         parent: _,
438 | |     } = target.expr.span.data();
    | |_____^ missing field `span2`
help: include the missing field in the pattern
    |
    |
437 |         parent: _, span2 } = target.expr.span.data();
help: if you don't care about this missing field, you can explicitly ignore it
    |
    |
437 |         parent: _, .. } = target.expr.span.data();

    Checking levenshtein v1.0.5
error[E0063]: missing field `span2` in initializer of `SpanData`
   --> src/tools/clippy/clippy_utils/src/source.rs:484:5

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e5e928e (e5e928e2b78547d491ae9f6e6685811ec3048beb)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e5e928e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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-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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	15

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[0.4%, 2.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.7%	[2.0%, 5.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[0.4%, 2.0%]	7

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.0%, 3.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 672.427s -> 673.025s (0.09%)
Artifact size: 313.37 MiB -> 313.40 MiB (0.01%)