Make AssocItem aware of its impl kind

[camsteffen]

The general goal is to have fewer query dependencies by making AssocItem aware of its parent impl kind (inherent vs. trait) without having to query the parent def_kind.

See individual commits.

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_sanitizers

cc @rcvalle

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 in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

This PR changes rustc_public

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

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa

cc @WaffleLapkin

[compiler-errors]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 77a42ec with merge ecc5941…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ecc5941 (ecc59411274ca4c68dad1b5a2b144afaf3510243, parent: 41ede7bd9bfbc9dc1e46c5c7de3b26524e5c61f0)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ecc5941): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	2.0%	[0.5%, 3.2%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.6%, 2.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.7%, -0.2%]	20
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.1%, -0.2%]	40
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.7%, 3.2%]	23

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.4%, secondary -1.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[0.5%, 6.3%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[1.2%, 6.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-4.2%, -1.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.9%	[-7.0%, -6.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-4.2%, 6.3%]	26

Cycles

Results (primary 3.3%, secondary 2.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.6%, 3.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 1.8%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.2%, 4.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.6%, -0.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-1.6%, 1.8%]	14

Bootstrap: 463.257s -> 466.12s (0.62%)
Artifact size: 377.39 MiB -> 375.29 MiB (-0.56%)

[petrochenkov]

Oh! I misunderstood that. Okay, I'm going to look back over things with that in mind. I think you're right - I'll revert this change and maybe others.

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different master 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.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit b995a55 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b995a55 with merge 637b50b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 637b50b to master...

[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 b50f345 (parent) -> 637b50b (this PR)

Test differences

Show 230 test diffs

230 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 637b50be01093962ac6f4432d6881ab41d6d90b4 --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. aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 3607.9s -> 3924.2s (8.8%)
2. tidy: 200.7s -> 184.1s (-8.3%)
3. x86_64-gnu-tools: 3576.7s -> 3872.4s (8.3%)
4. dist-various-1: 3954.7s -> 4261.0s (7.7%)
5. dist-riscv64-linux: 4941.9s -> 5319.9s (7.6%)
6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4161.8s -> 4474.6s (7.5%)
7. dist-powerpc-linux: 5046.4s -> 5409.6s (7.2%)
8. dist-armhf-linux: 4856.3s -> 5200.8s (7.1%)
9. aarch64-apple: 5521.1s -> 5884.8s (6.6%)
10. dist-sparcv9-solaris: 4989.7s -> 5304.9s (6.3%)

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 (637b50b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.2%, -0.1%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	15

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 1.9%)

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)	9.0%	[2.5%, 13.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.0%	[-11.6%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.3%)

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)	3.2%	[2.1%, 3.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, 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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.4%]	24
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.8%]	24
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	40
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.8%, -0.0%]	28
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.2%, 0.4%]	64

Bootstrap: 471.696s -> 474.269s (0.55%)
Artifact size: 390.21 MiB -> 390.15 MiB (-0.01%)

[nnethercote]

Nice work, @camsteffen! Can I ask how you found this, i.e. identified it as something worth working on?

[camsteffen]

Thanks @nnethercote! It was pretty unscientific. I just sleuth around the code and try to find things that could be neater or more direct. Some code paths around associated items just seemed to involve too many queries without short-circuiting for when only a certain impl kind is interesting.

[nnethercote]

That's a valid way to do it :)