Don't manually implement PartialEq for some types in rustc_type_ir

[GrigorenkoPV]

As a follow-up, we should look at not manually implementing PartialEq for these types but instead going thru a derive

I will try to tackle this later in a separate PR

#127042 (comment)

[rustbot]

r? @spastorino

rustbot has assigned @spastorino.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 17f8361 with merge 01a32f0...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 01a32f0 (01a32f05dade22f6bd3edb4628fd507dab0418b4)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (01a32f0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

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

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.5%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[3.4%, 3.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 769.319s -> 770.231s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 328.91 MiB -> 328.97 MiB (0.02%)

[compiler-errors]

Wonderful to see that we don't need these manual impls any longer

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 17f8361 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 17f8361 with merge 18854a7...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext failed! Check out the build log: (web)(plain)

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

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[GrigorenkoPV]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext failed! Check out the build log: (web)(plain)

error: failed to remove file `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage2-tools\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\release\cargo.exe`
Caused by:
Access is denied. (os error 5)

Seems to be spurious. I think I've seem a similar failure on another PR a few days ago.

@bors retry
or how do you do it

[bors]

@GrigorenkoPV: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[compiler-errors]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 17f8361 with merge 188ddf4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 188ddf4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (188ddf4): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 770.954s -> 769.854s (-0.14%)
Artifact size: 331.51 MiB -> 331.62 MiB (0.03%)