even more unify Projection/Opaque handling in region outlives code

[aliemjay]

edit: This continues ate the same pace as #106829. New changes are described in #106910 (comment).

This touches OutlivesBound, Component, GenericKind enums.

r? @oli-obk (because of overlap with #95474)

[compiler-errors]

lol, this basically duplicates #106829 I think?

[aliemjay]

Wow, what a strange coincidence!

@compiler-errors I think we can land yours first, and then I will update mine based on that. This is because this PR contains more involved changes, specifically the EscapingAlias change, which should fix an ICE in the following snippet (this reminds me to add a test):

#![feature(type_alias_impl_trait)]
type Ty<'a> = impl Sized + 'a;
fn define<'a>() -> Ty<'a> {}
fn test(_: &'static fn(Ty<'_>)) {}

Additionally this also introduces AliasTy::{kind,to_ty} which allows us to get rid of AliasKind.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106966) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[oli-obk]

@rustbot author

[aliemjay]

@rustbot review

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit c35bb812b7cd528357431e0230b06c5c5aa44212 with merge f97eeb789fd11a48395ace4b27510fc2adf64869...

[oli-obk]

@bors delegate+

r=me with perf clean

[bors]

✌️ @aliemjay can now approve this pull request

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f97eeb789fd11a48395ace4b27510fc2adf64869 (f97eeb789fd11a48395ace4b27510fc2adf64869)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f97eeb789fd11a48395ace4b27510fc2adf64869 (f97eeb789fd11a48395ace4b27510fc2adf64869)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f97eeb789fd11a48395ace4b27510fc2adf64869): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

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 a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.5%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.5%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-2.1%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-2.1%, -0.8%]	2

Cycles

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

[oli-obk]

A small regression in diesel. We should cachegrind it to see if it's something obvious

[oli-obk]

Cachegrind says

113,350,107  ???:<alloc::vec::Vec<rustc_middle::ty::sty::Binder<rustc_middle::ty::OutlivesPredicate<rustc_middle::ty::Ty, rustc_middle::ty::sty::Region>>> as alloc::vec::spec_from_iter::SpecFromIter<rustc_middle::ty::sty::Binder<rustc_middle::ty::OutlivesPredicate<rustc_middle::ty::Ty, rustc_middle::ty::sty::Region>>, core::iter::adapters::inspect::Inspect<core::iter::adapters::chain::Chain<core::iter::adapters::filter::Filter<core::iter::adapters::filter_map::FilterMap<core::iter::adapters::copied::Copied<core::slice::iter::Iter<rustc_middle::ty::Predicate>>, <rustc_infer::infer::outlives::verify::VerifyBoundCx>::collect_outlives_from_predicate_list<core::iter::adapters::copied::Copied<core::slice::iter::Iter<rustc_middle::ty::Predicate>>>::{closure
-64,527,904  ???:<rustc_infer::infer::outlives::verify::VerifyBoundCx>::param_bound
 14,731,334  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::subst::SubstFolder as rustc_middle::ty::fold::FallibleTypeFolder>::try_fold_ty
-13,297,583  ???:<rustc_borrowck::constraint_generation::ConstraintGeneration as rustc_middle::mir::visit::Visitor>::visit_basic_block_data
 10,924,743  ???:<rustc_infer::infer::at::At as rustc_trait_selection::traits::project::NormalizeExt>::normalize::<rustc_middle::ty::InstantiatedPredicates>
 10,799,485  ???:rustc_borrowck::constraint_generation::generate_constraints
-10,150,298  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::InstantiatedPredicates as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::fold_with::<rustc_infer::infer::resolve::OpportunisticVarResolver>
  9,251,025  ???:<rustc_trait_selection::traits::fulfill::FulfillmentContext as rustc_infer::traits::engine::TraitEngine>::register_predicate_obligation
  8,900,919  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::subst::GenericArg as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFoldable>::try_fold_with::<rustc_infer::infer::resolve::OpportunisticVarResolver>
  7,595,609  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::sty::AliasTy>::to_ty
 -7,301,243  ???:<rustc_infer::infer::outlives::verify::VerifyBoundCx>::projection_opaque_bounds
  6,529,401  ???:<rustc_infer::infer::outlives::verify::VerifyBoundCx>::alias_bound

I don't think there's really anything actionable here, and we should land regardless.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e40567b has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e40567b with merge 19423b5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 19423b5 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (19423b5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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