AliasTerm refactor

[WaffleLapkin]

follow up to #154758
tracking issue: #154941

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

changes to the core type system

cc @lcnr

HIR ty lowering was modified

cc @fmease

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

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

changes to the core type system

cc @lcnr

This PR changes rustc_public

cc @oli-obk, @celinval, @ouz-a, @makai410

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_sanitizers

cc @rcvalle

[BoxyUwU]

r? BoxyUwU

[Kivooeo]

a bit concerned about PredicateKind size increase, let's do a perf to make sure it's fine

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 8206b39 (8206b39ff9d255d5785bd8d5ad84a4a3d9ef510c, parent: 2f201bccb3a7fb5a85b0fcfcc0a020a946d6d58a)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8206b39): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.5%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	22
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, 0.5%]	28

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 0.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.6%, 1.2%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 0.9%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.8%, 1.2%]	6

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 491.618s -> 491.67s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 394.25 MiB -> 394.33 MiB (0.02%)

[BoxyUwU]

I feel a bit unsure about the with_args method, i feel like it makes the callsites which are obligation.predicate.with_args much less clear what's going on. but I guess thats a more general issue that projection predicates have really confusingly fields.

this PR needs a rebase and can you link to the tracking issue in the description. thx

View changes since this review

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[WaffleLapkin]

Rebased & added the tracking issue to the PR description.

[BoxyUwU]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=1 (bitrotty)

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit be8bfb2 has been approved by BoxyUwU

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jhpratt]

threading between rollups

@bors p=6

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: BoxyUwU
Duration: 3h 21m 41s
Pushing 1bfcb28 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing f9988fe (parent) -> 1bfcb28 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 23 test diffs

23 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 1bfcb284f7a2199ad322daa463e29e708d5bc635 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw: 1h 29m -> 1h 59m (+33.8%)
2. dist-armv7-linux: 1h 11m -> 1h 32m (+29.1%)
3. i686-gnu-1: 1h 48m -> 2h 18m (+27.8%)
4. dist-i686-msvc: 2h 29m -> 1h 53m (-24.2%)
5. dist-x86_64-netbsd: 1h 27m -> 1h 9m (-20.8%)
6. i686-gnu-2: 1h 38m -> 1h 18m (-20.7%)
7. dist-arm-linux-musl: 1h 40m -> 1h 19m (-20.6%)
8. x86_64-gnu-tools: 1h 2m -> 49m 44s (-20.0%)
9. pr-check-2: 35m 10s -> 41m 25s (+17.8%)
10. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 1h 4m -> 1h 12m (+12.3%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1bfcb28): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

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

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 0.9%]	19
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 0.7%]	19
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.2%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-0.4%, 0.9%]	29

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.8%, secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.7%, 2.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-4.1%, -1.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.9%]	2

Cycles

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 490.294s -> 491.717s (0.29%)
Artifact size: 394.43 MiB -> 394.44 MiB (0.00%)