Retire hir::*ItemRef.

[cjgillot]

This information was kept for various places that iterate on HIR to know about trait-items and impl-items.

This PR replaces them by uses of the associated_items query that contain pretty much the same information.

This shortens many spans to just def_span, which can be easier to read.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4e5d3e2 with merge 2d047d1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2d047d1 (2d047d1af1d10ea3b11563dc0347bfc68cf188e9)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #143390) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2d047d1): 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)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.7%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.1%	[-11.6%, -0.2%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary 0.9%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.9%	[1.8%, 2.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-1.6%, 2.0%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.9%)

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)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.0%	[-8.2%, -3.0%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 461.527s -> 461.455s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 372.16 MiB -> 372.04 MiB (-0.03%)

[rustbot]

r? @SparrowLii

rustbot has assigned @SparrowLii.
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]

Changes to the size of AST and/or HIR nodes.

cc @nnethercote

changes to the core type system

cc @compiler-errors, @lcnr

Some changes occurred in match checking

cc @Nadrieril

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #143783) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[compiler-errors]

r? compiler-errors @bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 27127e3 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 27127e3 with merge 9c3064e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 9c3064e 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 e9182f1 (parent) -> 9c3064e (this PR)

Test differences

Show 40 test diffs

40 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 9c3064e131f4939cc95a29bb11413c49bbda1491 --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. x86_64-apple-2: 3156.9s -> 4214.5s (33.5%)
2. dist-aarch64-linux: 6326.0s -> 8137.9s (28.6%)
3. dist-x86_64-apple: 7755.2s -> 9338.3s (20.4%)
4. pr-check-2: 2211.0s -> 2645.0s (19.6%)
5. aarch64-apple: 4095.4s -> 4724.2s (15.4%)
6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 3670.8s -> 4199.5s (14.4%)
7. x86_64-gnu-tools: 3220.7s -> 3674.2s (14.1%)
8. i686-gnu-2: 5526.6s -> 6270.8s (13.5%)
9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 3305.9s -> 3717.5s (12.5%)
10. i686-gnu-1: 7197.3s -> 8081.1s (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]

Finished benchmarking commit (9c3064e): comparison URL.

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

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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.8%	[-11.6%, -0.2%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.0%	[-0.1%, 0.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%, secondary -2.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -4.8%)

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)	8.2%	[8.2%, 8.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.9%	[-8.7%, -4.7%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 464.056s -> 462.57s (-0.32%)
Artifact size: 374.70 MiB -> 374.65 MiB (-0.01%)

[Kobzol]

More improvements than regressions, in particular an impressive win on many-assoc-items, great job!

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[mladedav]

This commit makes some code not compile playground.

At least cargo-bisect-rustc pointed me here. This turned on some lints for RPITIT but it also interacts weirdly with required vs provided functions and in one case emits a hard error for code which should probably be just linted (it is just linted when a private concrete return type is used), exmaple in the link above.

Also see #144020, although I did not verify that none of the lints weren't present before.