@nanosoldier runbenchmarks(ALL, vs=":master")

Your benchmark job has completed - possible performance regressions were detected. A full report can be found here.

Looks like this exposes some other existing issues, e.g. with OffsetArrays:

julia> map!(+, [0, 0, 0, 0], fill(0, -4:-1), fill(0, -4:-1), fill(0, -4:-1))
Int64[]

julia> map!(+, [0, 0, 0, 0], fill(0, -4:-1), fill(0, -4:-1))
4-element Vector{Int64}:
 0
 0
 0
 0

@nanosoldier runbenchmarks(ALL, vs=":master")

The changes in allocations here can be ignored, I think. They come from the additional bounds checks, but only when running with --check-bounds=yes (that the boundscheck is elided for that specific test). The failing test:

include("../../test/testhelpers/OffsetArrays.jl")
using Main.OffsetArrays
R = fill(0, -4:-1, 7:7, -6:-6)
B = OffsetArray(reshape(1:24, 4, 3, 2), -5, 6, -7)
@allocated maximum!(R, B)

1264 bytes on master, 1248 on this PR, but 1408 bytes when forcing bounds checks.

@nanosoldier runtests()

Your benchmark job has completed - possible performance regressions were detected. A full report can be found here.

The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible new issues were detected.
The full report is available.

was the attempt here successful? is there anything I can do to assist? e.g. particular benchmark regressions

Sadly not, the performance regressions are real, but I didn't have the time to look into them. Feel free to take this up and create your own PR, if you want.

Closing as abandoned, feel free to re-open if you'd like to pick it back up