[WIP] Support param bounds on non-lifetime binders

[compiler-errors]

👀

r? @ghost

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3471faa6dbd43943bb8dc2e3bdedf59fab546439 with merge ff357375eca19961c0e26a765585b8cf4b3a1b3c...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #115361) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #115751) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #116885) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[fmease]

Obviously, this is still WIP. Here's one observation I made while playing around with this patch:

trait Trait<T> {}
fn f(_: impl for<T: ?Sized> Trait<T>) {}

This successfully compiles (-Ztrait-solver=next ofc) while I don't think it should. impl for<T: ?Sized> Trait<T> isn't WF since the contained Trait<T> requires T: Sized to hold to be WF which isn't the case here. Cf: fn g<T: ?Sized>(_: impl Trait<T>) (ofc this is far from semantically equivalent) doesn't compile, rightly so.

[compiler-errors]

@fmease: Yeah, that's pre-existing.

#![feature(non_lifetime_binders)]

trait Trait<T> {}
fn f<S: for<T> Trait<T>>(_: S) {}
//~^ Recall that `for<T>` on stable == `for<T: ?Sized>`

This is likely due to one of the many !obligation.has_escaping_bound_vars() in wf code.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 82ae54c with merge 2e849e3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fc9bfc9 (fc9bfc929cc887ed990f710b53194d68c37697d7)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fc9bfc9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	0.8%	[0.1%, 2.4%]	116
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.1%, 3.8%]	79
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.1%, 2.4%]	116

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)	1.0%	[0.7%, 1.6%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[1.5%, 5.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-2.0%, -0.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-5.7%, -0.9%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-2.0%, 1.6%]	12

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)	1.2%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.7%, 2.7%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[0.4%, 1.7%]	9

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 673.256s -> 682.831s (1.42%)
Artifact size: 312.47 MiB -> 313.05 MiB (0.19%)

[Dylan-DPC]

Closing this as it was inactive for a while and has bitrotted with a ton of conflicts plus the perf regression. Might be better starting fresh.

[Dylan-DPC]

ah oops then :P fair

[compiler-errors]

(perf is going to be absymal, but let's see)

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 513eeb3 with merge abe0bfa...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: abe0bfa (abe0bfa4da894ead245f7da89acdfcc10ab56bc9)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (abe0bfa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 5.1%]	82
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.2%, 2.3%]	50
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 5.1%]	82

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 2.5%)

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)	1.5%	[0.6%, 4.4%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[1.2%, 4.8%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-2.5%, -0.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-2.5%, 4.4%]	16

Cycles

Results (primary 1.4%, secondary 1.9%)

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)	1.4%	[0.9%, 3.4%]	16
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.7%, 2.4%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[0.9%, 3.4%]	16

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.662s -> 789.655s (1.54%)
Artifact size: 365.21 MiB -> 365.67 MiB (0.13%)