Hi, Currently we have a bunch of tests in testsuite/tests/perf/compiler for keeping compile time allocations, max residency etc. in the expected ranges and avoid introducing accidental compile time performance regressions. This has a problem: we expect every MR to keep the compile time stats in the specified ranges, but sometimes a patch fixes an issue, or does something right (removes hacks/refactors bad code etc.) but also increases the numbers because sometimes doing it right means doing more work or keeping more things in memory (e.g. !1747, !2100 which is required by !1304). We then spend hours/days trying to shave a few bytes off in those patches, because the previous hacky/buggy code set the standards. It doesn't make sense to compare bad/buggy code with good code and expect them to do the same thing. Second problem is that it forces the developer to focus on a tiny part of the compiler to reduce the numbers to the where they were. If they looked at the big picture instead it might be possible to see rooms of improvements in other places that could be possibly lead to much more efficient use of the developer time. I think what we should do instead is that once it's clear that the patch did not introduce *accidental* increases in numbers (e.g. in !2100 I checked and explained the increase in average residency, and showed that the increase makes sense and is not a leak) and it's the right thing to do, we should merge it, and track the performance issues in another issue. The CI should still run perf tests, but those should be allowed to fail. Any opinions on this? Ömer