Allow lower_lifetime_binder receive a closure

[spastorino]

@oli-obk requested this and other changes as a way of simplifying #101345. This is just going to make the diff of #101345 smaller.

r? @oli-obk @cjgillot

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e9eb10e2d988dbd758ae279771ad1a8a0b0bcfac with merge c36757391276443d27a137862df24106e5bb20dc...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c36757391276443d27a137862df24106e5bb20dc (c36757391276443d27a137862df24106e5bb20dc)

[rust-timer]

Queued c36757391276443d27a137862df24106e5bb20dc with parent 380addd, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c36757391276443d27a137862df24106e5bb20dc): 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-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.4%, 1.4%]	15
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[1.0%, 3.9%]	15
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.4%, 1.4%]	15

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[oli-obk]

huh, why does this affect typeck perf?

[lqd]

A big part of that is probably noise: these benchmarks have been randomly going up and down all week on unrelated PRs.

And locally benchmarking the commit against its parent, on a couple of the most affected benchmarks (keccak and cranelift) looked like slight improvements on cachegrind instead of a regression.

We've identified a few cleanups though, to run the perfbot again.

[spastorino]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 36fa12f with merge fc3d44bb20fa82f6fa01c66baec68f923e62792f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fc3d44bb20fa82f6fa01c66baec68f923e62792f (fc3d44bb20fa82f6fa01c66baec68f923e62792f)

[rust-timer]

Queued fc3d44bb20fa82f6fa01c66baec68f923e62792f with parent f91ca28, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fc3d44bb20fa82f6fa01c66baec68f923e62792f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.8%, -3.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.2%]	2

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[4.0%, 4.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-4.9%, -2.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 36fa12f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[spastorino]

@bors rollup

I'm rolling this up because the performance issues we've seen were due to a wrong change that I've copied from the RPIT refactor PR which were cloning a ton of things and didn't belong to this PR.