inline(always) for lt/le/ge/gt on integers and floats

[scottmcm]

I happened to notice one of these not getting inlined as part of Range::next in https://rust.godbolt.org/z/4WKWWxj1G

    bb1: {
        StorageLive(_5);
        _6 = &mut _4;
        StorageLive(_21);
        StorageLive(_14);
        StorageLive(_15);
        _15 = &((*_6).0: usize);
        StorageLive(_16);
        _16 = &((*_6).1: usize);
        _14 = <usize as PartialOrd>::lt(move _15, move _16) -> bb7;
    }

So since a call for something that's just one instruction is never the right choice, #[inline(always)] seems appropriate, like we have it on things like the rotate methods on integers.

[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]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

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

[scottmcm]

I don't think this should be perf-relevant, since the MIR inliner will already be inlining them almost always, but just in case...
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 8857cc2 with merge 6c1a0267c787582839d81193b869347a06a55abf...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 6c1a0267c787582839d81193b869347a06a55abf (6c1a0267c787582839d81193b869347a06a55abf)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6c1a0267c787582839d81193b869347a06a55abf): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1

Cycles

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

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 8857cc2 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8857cc2 with merge c1bb0e0...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing c1bb0e0 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c1bb0e0): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	11.7%	[11.7%, 11.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.8%	[-0.1%, 11.7%]	2

Cycles

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