`AliasTerm` refactor by WaffleLapkin · Pull Request #155392 · rust-lang/rust

WaffleLapkin · 2026-04-16T13:24:09Z

View all comments

follow up to #154758
tracking issue: #154941

rustbot · 2026-04-16T13:24:13Z

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 · 2026-04-17T09:17:51Z

r? BoxyUwU

Kivooeo · 2026-04-18T06:41:33Z

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

@bors try @rust-timer queue

`AliasTerm` refactor

rust-bors · 2026-04-18T08:54:25Z

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

rust-timer · 2026-04-18T10:56:03Z

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

I have no idea what caused this change, I don't think other commits changed anything near these lines?..

WaffleLapkin · 2026-04-21T10:50:21Z

Rebased & added the tracking issue to the PR description.

BoxyUwU · 2026-04-21T21:45:12Z

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

rust-bors · 2026-04-21T21:45:15Z

📌 Commit be8bfb2 has been approved by BoxyUwU

It is now in the queue for this repository.

jhpratt · 2026-04-22T02:14:13Z

threading between rollups

@bors p=6

rust-bors · 2026-04-22T06:19:35Z

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

github-actions · 2026-04-22T06:22:32Z

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

dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw: 1h 29m -> 1h 59m (+33.8%)
dist-armv7-linux: 1h 11m -> 1h 32m (+29.1%)
i686-gnu-1: 1h 48m -> 2h 18m (+27.8%)
dist-i686-msvc: 2h 29m -> 1h 53m (-24.2%)
dist-x86_64-netbsd: 1h 27m -> 1h 9m (-20.8%)
i686-gnu-2: 1h 38m -> 1h 18m (-20.7%)
dist-arm-linux-musl: 1h 40m -> 1h 19m (-20.6%)
x86_64-gnu-tools: 1h 2m -> 49m 44s (-20.0%)
pr-check-2: 35m 10s -> 41m 25s (+17.8%)
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 · 2026-04-22T07:01:10Z

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%)

Mark-Simulacrum · 2026-04-27T23:06:12Z

@WaffleLapkin / @BoxyUwU it looks like there were some concerns over the size increases (#155392 (comment)), it looks like those have born out in both pre-merge and after-merge results. Do we think the refactor here is worth the slight regressions in instruction counts? I think it's reasonable to accept them given the lack of cycle counts.

lcnr · 2026-04-28T08:32:07Z

 goal.param_env,
 ty::UnevaluatedConst::new(
- goal.predicate.alias.def_id.try_into().unwrap(),
+ goal.predicate.alias.def_id().try_into().unwrap(),


we should pass in the DefId from the match where we decide to call normalize_anon_const here? 🤔
View changes since the review

lcnr · 2026-04-28T08:32:23Z

 self.add_goals(
 GoalSource::Misc,
- cx.predicates_of(free_alias.def_id)
+ cx.predicates_of(free_alias.def_id())


same here
View changes since the review

lcnr · 2026-04-28T08:32:49Z

+ cx.type_of(inherent.def_id()).instantiate(cx, inherent_args).skip_norm_wip().into()
 } else {
- cx.const_of_item(inherent.def_id).instantiate(cx, inherent_args).skip_norm_wip().into()
+ cx.const_of_item(inherent.def_id())


and here, I guess in general, I feel like most calls of AliasXXX::def_id are meh
View changes since the review

i would expect in the long run we just get rid of this method since not everything will have a DefId anymore

BoxyUwU · 2026-04-28T08:49:26Z

@Mark-Simulacrum

Do we think the refactor here is worth the slight regressions in instruction counts?

It would probably be good to look into if we can reduce the size of PredicateKind again and see if that helps. If it's not possible to get the perf back I think this is acceptable as this refactor is necessary for supporting inherent_associated_types and also inherent associated consts in const generics (as well as some other important stuff)

rustbot assigned lcnr Apr 16, 2026

rustbot assigned BoxyUwU and unassigned lcnr Apr 17, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

rust-borsBot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2026
Auto merge of#155392- WaffleLapkin:alias-termmm, r=<try>
8206b39
`AliasTerm` refactor

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Apr 18, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Apr 18, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

BoxyUwU approved these changes Apr 20, 2026
View reviewed changes

BoxyUwU mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2026
generic_const_args: allow paths to non type consts #155341
Merged

WaffleLapkin added 6 commits April 21, 2026 12:28

AliasTermTy refactor: API changes
3484c89

AliasTermTy refactor: fixup compiler
d798694

AliasTermTy refactor: fixup rustdoc
c0ddfb0

AliasTermTy refactor: fixup clippy
c32020d

add AliasTermTy::with_args to simplify a common-ish pattern
0ff2fe8

bless ui tests
59be02e

x fmt
be8bfb2
I have no idea what caused this change, I don't think other commits changed anything near these lines?..

rust-borsBot added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 21, 2026

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

rust-borsBot added merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Apr 22, 2026

rust-borsBot merged commit 1bfcb28 into rust-lang:mainApr 22, 2026
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.97.0 milestone Apr 22, 2026

WaffleLapkin deleted the alias-termmm branch April 22, 2026 07:29

lcnr reviewed Apr 28, 2026
View reviewed changes

lcnr mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2026
Use special DefIds for aliases #155981
Merged

josetorrs mentioned this pull request May 1, 2026
refactor TypeRelativePath::AssocItem to use AliasTerm#155323
Merged
1 task

lcnr mentioned this pull request May 5, 2026
Internal Tracking Issue for the AliasTerm refactor #156181
Open
7 tasks

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

WaffleLapkin commented Apr 16, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Kivooeo commented Apr 18, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-borsBot commented Apr 18, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Apr 18, 2026

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

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

BoxyUwU left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

WaffleLapkin commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-borsBot commented Apr 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jhpratt commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-borsBot commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actionsBot commented Apr 22, 2026

Test differences

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Apr 22, 2026

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

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

lcnrApr 28, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lcnrApr 28, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lcnrApr 28, 2026• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Apr 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

9 participants

WaffleLapkin commented Apr 16, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

BoxyUwU left a comment •
edited by rustbot
Loading

lcnrApr 28, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

lcnrApr 28, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading

lcnrApr 28, 2026•
edited by rustbot
Loading