Folder experiment: Account for flags in const folders

[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

These are probably actually neutral given that we're not often folding large consts in the wild (since we're not in a GCE world), but they do run somewhat often, so let's see what perf says. I'm not actually totally certain when the abstract const expander runs, tbh.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit fec2276 with merge 850a60d...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 850a60d (850a60d3ae1a0e3fe3a1ea0727b38d6c43934b80)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (850a60d): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 1.5%)

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)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
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: 777.539s -> 775.637s (-0.24%)
Artifact size: 365.91 MiB -> 365.91 MiB (0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

🫡