[DO NOT COMMIT] Use derivative to simplify impls in rustc_type_ir

[compiler-errors]

Gotta keep things like Copy impl around since they've got a ton of bounds.

r? @ghost

[rustbot]

Third-party dependency whitelist may have been modified! You must ensure that any new dependencies have compatible licenses before merging.

cc @davidtwco, @wesleywiser

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[compiler-errors]

Derivative has MIT/Apache 2.0 license. Not exactly sure if there's anything else to do to add a new crate dep.

[compiler-errors]

oh also

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2d309ff with merge b7d0130...

[oli-obk]

r=me with perf clean

This is amazing!

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b7d0130 (b7d01301e51bc5eafb190add2bfb0ed620311b5d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b7d0130): 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

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)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.3%]	48
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.2%, 2.2%]	24
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.3%]	48

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)	1.8%	[1.2%, 2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-4.7%, -1.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 304.42 MiB -> 304.43 MiB (0.00%)

[jackh726]

Hmm, wonder why perf regresses?

[compiler-errors]

Probably the PartialOrd implementation

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b1a97f6 with merge e9ffb12...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e9ffb12 (e9ffb12741651d6577eca0d88ba8f69eead5642b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e9ffb12): 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

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)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.3%]	47
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.3%, 2.3%]	21
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 1.3%]	47

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.6%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.3%, 3.1%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.4%, -1.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.4%, -1.1%]	4

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 633.438s -> 634.402s (0.15%)
Artifact size: 304.44 MiB -> 304.53 MiB (0.03%)

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit aa77d64 with merge c0d91c4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c0d91c4 (c0d91c489c5ad9c2fc7b5da38b339bf260ccd48e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c0d91c4): 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

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)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.3%]	50
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.3%, 2.3%]	25
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.3%]	50

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)	4.4%	[4.4%, 4.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[-1.1%, 4.4%]	2

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.0%, -2.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 636.748s -> 634.494s (-0.35%)
Artifact size: 304.50 MiB -> 304.56 MiB (0.02%)