Add inlining annotations in dec2flt.

[TDecking]

Currently, the combination of dec2flt being generic and the FromStr implementaions
containing inline anttributes causes massive amounts of assembly to be generated whenever
these implementation are used. In addition, the assembly has calls to function which ought to
be inlined, but they are not (even when using lto).

This Pr fixes this.

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @thomcc (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[thomcc]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit db2c6e0 with merge aad4a39ef47c618aa71a055c8699e94f5fbf9959...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: aad4a39ef47c618aa71a055c8699e94f5fbf9959 (aad4a39ef47c618aa71a055c8699e94f5fbf9959)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: aad4a39ef47c618aa71a055c8699e94f5fbf9959 (aad4a39ef47c618aa71a055c8699e94f5fbf9959)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (aad4a39ef47c618aa71a055c8699e94f5fbf9959): 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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.4%, -0.4%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.4%, 0.4%]	11

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)	3.8%	[3.1%, 4.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-4.8%, -0.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-4.8%, 4.5%]	4

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)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.8%]	3

[TDecking]

All regressions are inside diesel-1.4.8. The only instance I see is in sqlite/types/date_and_time/chrono.rs inside the
impl FromSql<Timestamp, Sqlite> for NaiveDateTime definition. Oddly enough, there is a regression inside the check profile,
and I don't see how my changes could possibly affect this.

[Noratrieb]

Running the cachegrind command locally shows that most changes in diesel happened in type folding - looks like noise.
@rustbot label +perf-regression-triaged

[TDecking]

@Nilstrieb Thanks for the help.

[thomcc]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit db2c6e0 has been approved by thomcc

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit db2c6e0 with merge 84c47b8...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: thomcc
Pushing 84c47b8 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (84c47b8): comparison URL.

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

@rustbot label: -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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, 0.3%]	2

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)	1.6%	[0.5%, 4.4%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-1.9%, -1.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-1.9%, 4.4%]	6

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.4%]	3