Move methods from Map to TyCtxt, part 5.

[nnethercote]

This eliminates all methods on Map. Actually removing Map will occur in a follow-up PR.

A follow-up to #137504.

r? @Zalathar

[rustbot]

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

cc @jdonszelmann

HIR ty lowering was modified

cc @fmease

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

Some changes occurred in match checking

cc @Nadrieril

Some changes occurred in need_type_info.rs

cc @lcnr

[Zalathar]

Nice.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 6713f34 has been approved by Zalathar

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[lcnr]

followup once this PR lands

I think we should remove this method. It's just a wrapper for def_span which doesn't return stuff if the definition isn't local. I feel like this behavior should be explicit and that most places actually should to use the span regardless of whether it's local 🤔

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build 5c9cf68

Trying if this caused the regression from #139257.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5c9cf68): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	40
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -2.4%)

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)	3.6%	[3.0%, 4.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.5%, 2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-3.2%, -1.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-5.2%, -0.8%]	22
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-3.2%, 4.3%]	6

Cycles

Results (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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-3.0%, -2.0%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 776.507s -> 776.299s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 366.05 MiB -> 365.96 MiB (-0.03%)

[nnethercote]

Huh, surprising this had a perf effect! I will try to work out what happened.

[nnethercote]

I wonder if the measured regressions are bogus/transient.

The affected benchmarks (html5ever, deep-vector, tuple-stress, etc.) look like they've gotten noisy over the past few measurements.

I tried reproducing the regression with deep-vector locally, but couldn't reproduce it. I then ran Cachegrind on deep-vector using the built artifacts from the perf run and the small differences were all in the allocator, functions like tcache_bin_flush_small and emap_try_acquire_edata_neighbor and extent_try_coalesce_impl.

And this PR should be perf-neutral: it just moves some methods from Map (a trivial wrapper around TyCtxt) to TyCtxt. I did the same thing in #136466, #137162, #137350, and #137504, and none of those had a performance effect.

[Kobzol]

The primary benchmarks do look a bit noisy recently, yeah. It could indeed be a fluke, I'll leave it up to you to mark it as triaged, unless you want to continue investigating.

[nnethercote]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged