Move ICH to rustc_query_system

[cjgillot]

Based on #89183

The StableHashingContext does not need to be in rustc_middle.

This PR moves it to rustc_query_system. This will avoid a dependency between rustc_ast_lowering and rustc_middle in #89124.

[rust-highfive]

Some changes occured to rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Some changes occured to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

[rust-highfive]

r? @davidtwco

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #89092) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[davidtwco]

This all seems sensible to me, but I'll reassign to get another opinion.

[davidtwco]

r? @michaelwoerister

[cjgillot]

Actually, putting it in rustc_query_system would be more consistent.

[michaelwoerister]

Looks good to me. Thanks, @cjgillot!

Let's do a perf run for good measure:
@bors try @rust-timer queue

If that doesn't yield any surprises, r=davidtwco,michaelwoerister after rebasing and updating the PR message.

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 64a8296404f34e1d6eb70fc8403719eca6d34843 with merge 0167f490eac64cc5491f7207f726854e923cda54...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0167f490eac64cc5491f7207f726854e923cda54 (0167f490eac64cc5491f7207f726854e923cda54)

[rust-timer]

Queued 0167f490eac64cc5491f7207f726854e923cda54 with parent 598d89b, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0167f490eac64cc5491f7207f726854e923cda54): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to moderate relevant regressions 😿 in compiler performance.

• Moderate regression in instruction counts (up to 1.1% on incr-unchanged builds of externs)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led 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

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (376d7982c5989bfb7db8ef162de7e442e7168d62): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to moderate relevant improvements 🎉 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.8% on incr-unchanged builds of externs)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

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

[michaelwoerister]

Performance looks good now 👍

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit b2ed9c4 has been approved by michaelwoerister

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b2ed9c4 with merge 6f7dab50d103a74c5130a3ebf578ade0467ee02e...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[cjgillot]

@bors retry

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b2ed9c4 with merge 55111d6...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: michaelwoerister
Pushing 55111d6 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (55111d6): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes.

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression