Only trigger refining_impl_trait lint on reachable traits

[compiler-errors]

Public but unreachable traits don't matter 😸

r? @tmandry

[tmandry]

What's up with this?

[compiler-errors]

This is due to the fact that we call effective_visibilities rather than visibility -- this calls type_of on opaques since visibility computation requires knowing what the hidden type of the opaque is, which requires calling typeck on all of the bodies in-scope. This bubbles up the type error.

[tmandry]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 06d9602 has been approved by tmandry

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 06d9602 with merge 5236c8e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: tmandry
Pushing 5236c8e to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5236c8e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 0.6%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	4

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.7%, -3.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 623.73s -> 623.632s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 272.01 MiB -> 272.04 MiB (0.01%)

[compiler-errors]

That is certainly noise. This lint only calls effective_visibilities on methods that actually have RPITITs.