Add IMPLIED_BOUNDS_ENTAILMENT lint

[compiler-errors]

Implements a lint (#105572) version of the hard-error introduced in #105483. Context is in that PR.

r? @lcnr
cc @oli-obk who had asked for this to be a lint first

Not sure if this needs to be an FCP, since it's a lint for now.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b85a28fbbf85acf442b5c57c45ad1d563fd2e938 with merge 9490fcf9c4ecf3ed0b3ae1a007f2f8e5b26d5692...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9490fcf9c4ecf3ed0b3ae1a007f2f8e5b26d5692 (9490fcf9c4ecf3ed0b3ae1a007f2f8e5b26d5692)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9490fcf9c4ecf3ed0b3ae1a007f2f8e5b26d5692): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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

Warning ⚠: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

• rustc

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)	0.9%	[0.3%, 2.8%]	29
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[1.0%, 2.0%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.3%, 2.8%]	29

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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[1.8%, 2.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-2.2%, -0.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-2.2%, 0.6%]	4

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)	1.8%	[1.2%, 2.7%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[1.2%, 2.7%]	13

[compiler-errors]

@lcnr told me r=me on Zulip after updating the tracking issue (#105572) to be more descriptive.

We also discussed this during the compiler team meeting (starting here) and decided the perf hit is acceptable, as this lint will be removed and turned into a hard error hopefully in a few versions.

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit 49176abdd7ff51b3433a072222895785758951b7 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 49176abdd7ff51b3433a072222895785758951b7 with merge c09c28be814c4b2d4a851edbcfcec79ef3e90cb8...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=lcnr lol let's try this again

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8c86773 with merge 7f42e58...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 7f42e58 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7f42e58): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.9%	[0.2%, 2.3%]	20
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.6%	[0.6%, 2.6%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 2.3%]	20

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	1.3%	[0.9%, 2.1%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[0.9%, 2.1%]	6

[oli-obk]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

This regression was anticipated and accepted by the compiler team and types team on the grounds that we'll get this perf back once the future incompat lint becomes a hard error.

Also: this addresses a soundness issue

[jackh726]

I'm going to add relnotes here. It's not certain at what stage this lint will be (still warn or upgraded to deny) at release time, but given the size of breakages reported by crater, I think it would be good to point this out.

[apiraino]

Beta backport accepted as per compiler team on Zulip

@rustbot label +beta-accepted

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@compiler-errors This doesn't seem to backport cleanly -- can you prepare a PR targeting the beta branch?