interpret: make some large types not Copy

[RalfJung]

Also remove some unused trait impls (mostly HashStable).

This didn't find any unnecessary copies that I managed to avoid, but it might still be better to require explicit clone for these types? Not sure.

r? @oli-obk

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d90185827ab6d18956cf668fed302f01ee721eed with merge e43644679e78da80484751bc69eb266a1e5ba8e3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e43644679e78da80484751bc69eb266a1e5ba8e3 (e43644679e78da80484751bc69eb266a1e5ba8e3)

[rust-timer]

Queued e43644679e78da80484751bc69eb266a1e5ba8e3 with parent e6c43cf, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e43644679e78da80484751bc69eb266a1e5ba8e3): comparison url.

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	4.0%	5.3%	2
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-2.3%	-2.3%	1
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-2.3%	-2.3%	1

Cycles

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

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change↩

2. number of relevant changes↩

[lqd]

it's not going to matter much in the grand scheme of things by saving one (1) clone per call to this intrinsic, but this one should be easy to remove by calling copy_op in the branches ^^

[RalfJung]

Yeah I considered this and decided, for the reasons you mentioned, that reducing code duplication is more important.

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

[RalfJung]

Oh, bors didn't mention the conflict, strange.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 213a25d has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 213a25d with merge 29c5a02...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 29c5a02 to master...

[rust-highfive]

📣 Toolstate changed by #99309!

Tested on commit 29c5a02.
Direct link to PR: #99309

💔 miri on windows: test-fail → build-fail (cc @RalfJung@oli-obk).
💔 miri on linux: test-fail → build-fail (cc @RalfJung@oli-obk).

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (29c5a02): comparison url.

Instruction count

• Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	1.5%	1.7%	3
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-0.8%	-0.8%	1
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-0.8%	-0.8%	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	2.0%	2.0%	1
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-3.1%	-3.1%	1
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-3.0%	-4.0%	4
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-3.1%	-3.1%	1

Cycles

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

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change↩↩²

2. number of relevant changes↩↩²

[oli-obk]

weird, the previous perf run was clean. Inlining threshold noise I guess?

[oli-obk]

268,061,669 ???:<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>::run
-7,078,188 ???:<rustc_middle::ty::subst::SubstFolder as rustc_middle::ty::fold::TypeFolder>::fold_const
-5,636,093 ???:<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>::eval_place
5,453,140 ???:<rustc_middle::ty::instance::Instance>::resolve_opt_const_arg
-3,829,325 ???:<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>::eval_fn_call
3,704,373 ???:<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>::push_stack_frame
-3,407,626 ???:<rustc_middle::ty::normalize_erasing_regions::TryNormalizeAfterErasingRegionsFolder as rustc_middle::ty::fold::FallibleTypeFolder>::try_fold_mir_const
-2,175,874 ???:<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>::eval_operand
-367,016 ???:<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>::mir_const_to_op
277,583 ???:rustc_trait_selection::traits::project::normalize::<rustc_middle::ty::sty::TraitRef>
-277,443 ???:llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&)
-262,321 ???:<rustc_target::abi::TyAndLayout<rustc_middle::ty::Ty>>::field::<rustc_const_eval::interpret::eval_context::InterpCx<rustc_const_eval::const_eval::machine::CompileTimeInterpreter>>