Folder experiment: Account for type flags in fold_predicate in OpportunisticVarResolver

[compiler-errors]

NOTE: This is one of a series of perf experiments that I've come up with while sick in bed. I'm assigning them to lqd b/c you're a good reviewer and you'll hopefully be awake when these experiments finish, lol.

r? lqd

Same as #139288, but for the var resolver. I could've probably merged these into one, but I want to test these things in parallel. Close this if it ends up neutral.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9caa7f5 with merge 3eee82c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3eee82c (3eee82cae17fecb33aab148e30c5f974477eeb99)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3eee82c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.6%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.0%)

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)	2.0%	[1.8%, 2.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%)

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)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: 777.539s -> 774.719s (-0.36%)
Artifact size: 365.91 MiB -> 365.81 MiB (-0.03%)