Reveal opaque types before drop elaboration

[oli-obk]

fixes #113594

r? @cjgillot

cc @JakobDegen

This pass was introduced in #110714

I moved it before drop elaboration (which only cares about the hidden types of things, not the opaque TAIT or RPIT type) and set it to run unconditionally (instead of depending on the optimization level and whether the inliner is active)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a1e7d38 with merge e3f388f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e3f388f (e3f388f7b7d8d5d87d7e1743b76148b1fae63325)

[compiler-errors]

This doesn't fix when there's an async on the fn that ICEs.

[compiler-errors]

We could remove this?

[oli-obk]

yea, that fixes the issue and has no fallout.

#115763 does this on its own

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e3f388f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	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)	1.6%	[1.6%, 1.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-4.4%, -1.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.8%, -1.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-4.4%, 1.6%]	4

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	9

Bootstrap: 629.05s -> 630.934s (0.30%)
Artifact size: 317.65 MiB -> 317.66 MiB (0.00%)

[cjgillot]

r=me with ci passing.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

[rustbot]

This PR changes MIR

cc @oli-obk, @RalfJung, @JakobDegen, @davidtwco, @celinval, @vakaras

[oli-obk]

r? @lcnr since you reviewed the related PRs by @ouz-a

[lcnr]

that's nice 👍

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 0031cf7 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0031cf7 with merge c545019...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing c545019 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c545019): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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%	[2.0%, 2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.1%	[-8.5%, -1.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-5.1%	[-8.5%, -1.6%]	2

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.0%, 0.2%]	10

Bootstrap: 631.779s -> 634.388s (0.41%)
Artifact size: 317.27 MiB -> 317.38 MiB (0.03%)