Move layout_of and friends from rustc_middle to rustc_ty_utils

[camsteffen]

Breaks up the very large module that is rustc_middle::ty::layout by fork-lifting some queries into rustc_ty_utils::{abi, layout}.

This does set back rustc_ty_utils to having untranslatable diagnostics. I'd like to leave this as a separate task.

[rust-highfive]

r? @fee1-dead

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[camsteffen]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

(don't really expect any changes but let's see)

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 95b689b with merge 55bf0be2330893c1131c46983cb0e46141ca1c1b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 55bf0be2330893c1131c46983cb0e46141ca1c1b (55bf0be2330893c1131c46983cb0e46141ca1c1b)

[rust-timer]

Queued 55bf0be2330893c1131c46983cb0e46141ca1c1b with parent 0922559, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (55bf0be2330893c1131c46983cb0e46141ca1c1b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.6%, -1.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.1%, 4.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.8%	[-4.8%, -4.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-4.2%, -1.7%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-3.9%, -3.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-4.2%, -1.7%]	8

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[fee1-dead]

This does set back rustc_ty_utils to having untranslatable diagnostics. I'd like to leave this as a separate task.

Please open an issue for that, otherwise LGTM.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 95b689b has been approved by fee1-dead

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 95b689b with merge ead49f0...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fee1-dead
Pushing ead49f0 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ead49f0): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.6%, -1.1%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[2.5%, 5.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²