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?