yeet ReErased from HAS_FREE_LOCAL_NAMES since ParamEnv::and hack is dead

[compiler-errors]

I always thought this was kinda sketchy, but it was only needed due to the hack removed in #116417

r? types

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 42cf222 with merge b660bce...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b660bce (b660bced98c5c7a005c7accc6006c07b33ba6300)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b660bce): 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)	1.0%	[0.3%, 1.5%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[0.2%, 2.7%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[0.3%, 1.5%]	8

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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)	1.7%	[1.3%, 1.9%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.1%, 2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[1.3%, 1.9%]	4

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 624.256s -> 624.564s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 270.63 MiB -> 270.63 MiB (0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 639c30c with merge d2e7cd8...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d2e7cd8 (d2e7cd80fc0aa12dffdc1d4bb2526810afc01041)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d2e7cd8): 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)	0.8%	[0.3%, 1.4%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.9%, 2.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 1.4%]	10

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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.8%, 2.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-4.5%, -4.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-4.5%, 0.6%]	2

Cycles

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)	2.1%	[1.9%, 2.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.2%, 2.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.9%	[-4.9%, -4.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[1.9%, 2.2%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 628.393s -> 628.268s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 271.29 MiB -> 270.94 MiB (-0.13%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4afc540 with merge 9d4728f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9d4728f (9d4728f6f10d6e563dc97be63c1811968ca60dc5)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9d4728f): 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)	0.9%	[0.3%, 1.4%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.0%, 2.6%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.3%, 1.4%]	8

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)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-3.1%, -2.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1

Cycles

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)	1.2%	[0.4%, 1.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[0.4%, 1.8%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 675.761s -> 676.951s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 313.69 MiB -> 313.61 MiB (-0.03%)

[compiler-errors]

I kind of still want to land this with the perf regression, since it's fixing something that I think is particularly sketchy... what do you think, @lcnr?

[lcnr]

the only non-incr changed affected is regex doc and regression-31157 debug. I also prefer to change this, accepting the perf impact.

[lcnr]

I wasn't able to come up with any test where the param_env hack removed in this PR impacts behavior, but I am still in favor of avoiding such hacks whenever possible

[compiler-errors]

This is probably never gonna get approved.