Querify part of inline cost estimation

[saethlin]

r? @ghost

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit cc30799 with merge 4b3f3dd...

[scottmcm]

nitpick: I think this is a "should" not a "must".

Like an A* heuristic, I think it'd probably fine to be an underestimate 99% of the time because if there's something unlikely that can hypothetically make it overestimate, that would be fine.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4b3f3dd (4b3f3dd78a66c833d25566b2eb134cdd7e1c177b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4b3f3dd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 3.6%)

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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[2.0%, 4.3%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 671.639s -> 671.701s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 320.44 MiB -> 320.36 MiB (-0.03%)

[saethlin]

@scottmcm I'm going to close in a few days unless you object, this because we have no evidence that this approach improves anything. If you have further suggestions for a way to make this more effective, I'm willing to try them out. Or you can push to this PR, or you can yoink this code to your own PR.

[scottmcm]

Totally good with closing this. I can definitely come back and ninja the code from it should it make it to the top of my list, but I'm unlikely to do anything with it in the next couple days.

Thanks for trying this out!