finish Reveal removal

[lcnr]

After #133212 changed the TypingMode to be the only source of truth, this entirely rips out Reveal.

cc #132279

r? @compiler-errors

[rustbot]

changes to the core type system

cc @compiler-errors, @lcnr

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri, @rust-lang/wg-const-eval

Some changes occurred in match checking

cc @Nadrieril

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in exhaustiveness checking

cc @Nadrieril

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Some changes occurred in tests/ui/sanitizer

cc @rust-lang/project-exploit-mitigations, @rcvalle

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor

[lcnr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 08c4525 with merge e7c53b1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e7c53b1 (e7c53b1e368d28c379a0c14a4c0718cf45ef2dd5)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e7c53b1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.4%, -0.2%]	22
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-9.2%, -0.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.4%, -0.2%]	22

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.3%, secondary 3.2%)

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%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.2%	[2.9%, 3.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.8%, -2.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-3.8%, 1.7%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary -1.4%, secondary -6.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.7%, -1.2%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.1%	[-9.3%, -2.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.7%, -1.2%]	8

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 793.177s -> 793.562s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 335.96 MiB -> 336.05 MiB (0.03%)

[lcnr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit af0d83a with merge 546d974...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 546d974 (546d97442244c95e308661462ac7d8d89189497b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (546d974): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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 the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 3.6%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	23
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 3.6%]	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.4%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	1.4%	[0.5%, 3.3%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[1.1%, 3.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[0.5%, 3.3%]	11

Cycles

Results (primary 4.3%)

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)	4.3%	[3.1%, 5.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.3%	[3.1%, 5.5%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 793.512s -> 793.496s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 335.99 MiB -> 335.99 MiB (0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

Can you open a tracking issue to write a packing implementation of TypingEnv?

[lcnr]

@bors r=compiler-errors,BoxyUwU rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 776731d has been approved by compiler-errors,BoxyUwU

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jieyouxu]

@bors p=6 (threading this between two rollups)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 776731d with merge 386a7c7...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors,BoxyUwU
Pushing 386a7c7 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (386a7c7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 3.6%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	24
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.2%, 3.6%]	11

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%)

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)	1.5%	[0.8%, 2.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[0.8%, 2.1%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%)

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)	3.1%	[2.9%, 3.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[2.9%, 3.4%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 795.832s -> 798.452s (0.33%)
Artifact size: 336.26 MiB -> 336.33 MiB (0.02%)

[Kobzol]

Do you think there's a way to reduce the regressions (from #133212 and this PR)? I assume that this is an important refactoring and that it might not worth be the hassle, so if not, then nevermind.

[lcnr]

This is an important refactoring 😁 #132279 has a subissue #133336 which would halve the size of TypingMode, likely giving us some of the perf back.

I also have a caching optimization in mind which should allow us to actually get a perf benefit from this. Both of these changes aren't completely trivial so I will probably not get to them right away.

[Kobzol]

Great, thanks for the explanation! Then we don't need to deal with the regressions now, especially when there's a chance that there will be perf. improvements in the future.

[marxin]

After this change, there are 2 new orphan links in rustc-dev-guide, please fix them:

error: Server returned 404 Not Found for https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_infer/traits/enum.Reveal.html
  ┌─ param_env/param_env_what_is_it.md:6:86
  │
6 │ The information represented by `ParamEnv` is a list of in-scope where-clauses, and a [`Reveal`][reveal] (see linked docs for more information). A `ParamEnv` typically corresponds to a specific item's where clauses, some clauses are not explicitly written bounds and instead are implicitly added in [`predicates_of`][predicates_of] such as `ConstArgHasType` or some implied bounds.
  │                                                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Server returned 404 Not Found for https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_infer/traits/enum.Reveal.html

error: Server returned 404 Not Found for https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_infer/traits/enum.Reveal.html
   ┌─ param_env/param_env_acquisition.md:24:58
   │
24 │ An additional piece of complexity here is specifying the [`Reveal`][reveal] (see linked docs for explanation of what reveal does) used for the `ParamEnv`. When constructing a param env using the `param_env` query it will have `Reveal::UserFacing`, if `Reveal::All` is desired then the [`tcx.param_env_reveal_all_normalized`][env_reveal_all_normalized] query can be used instead.
   │                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Server returned 404 Not Found for https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_infer/traits/enum.Reveal.html