do not encode constness for constructors

[fee1-dead]

since they are always const

r? oli-obk

[rustbot]

oli-obk is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

[fee1-dead]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7df40d0 (7df40d0fa9b3202f21490931eef76a87c451c41c, parent: a6525d5264da34f51ad48c178281d3c6323dbfcf)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7df40d0): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible 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 2.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[4.0%, 4.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.2%, -2.8%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 479.783s -> 479.328s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 390.59 MiB -> 390.59 MiB (0.00%)

[oli-obk]

Since it doesn't affect metadata size, do you think the extra complexity is worth it?