i586_unknown_netbsd: use inline stack probes

[erikdesjardins]

This is one of the last two targets still using "call" stack probes.

I don't believe that this target uses call stack probes for any particular reason--inline stack probes are used on i686_unknown_netbsd, suggesting they work on netbsd; and on i586_unknown_linux_gnu (via the base i686_unknown_linux_gnu), suggesting they work with cpu = "pentium".

...although I don't have a netbsd system to test this on.

(cc @he32)

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

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

[rustbot]

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

[Noratrieb]

r=me if the target maintainer agrees that this is correct

[erikdesjardins]

ping @he32 -- this is the only netbsd target that uses call stack probes--all others use inline probes or don't have stack probes at all--I'd like to clean it up

[he32]

ping @he32 -- this is the only netbsd target that uses call stack probes--all others use inline probes or don't have stack probes at all--I'd like to clean it up

I've re-built the rust compiler on the native target with that patch in place, so it's most probably OK.

[Noratrieb]

in that case
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 3b73e89 has been approved by Nilstrieb

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 3b73e89 with merge 53ed660...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb
Pushing 53ed660 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (53ed660): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

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

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)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	25
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	4

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.2%	[2.2%, 4.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 650.944s -> 651.401s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 311.12 MiB -> 311.13 MiB (0.00%)

[lqd]

This PR is for a different target than the one we profile on, so it has to be showing the currently noisy benchmarks instead.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged