Record LocalDefId in HIR nodes instead of a side table

[cjgillot]

This is part of an attempt to remove the HirId -> LocalDefId table from HIR.
This attempt is a prerequisite to creation of LocalDefId after HIR lowering (#96840), by controlling how def_id information is accessed.

This first part adds the information to HIR nodes themselves instead of a table.
The second part is #103902
The third part will be to make hir::Visitor::visit_fn take a LocalDefId as last parameter.
The fourth part will be to completely remove the side table.

[rustbot]

r? @fee1-dead

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 4a10ad4401335da257868d5f16acd69554010ff6 with merge 4455c124dba8daf716e860e09ff6f1900be13c57...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4455c124dba8daf716e860e09ff6f1900be13c57 (4455c124dba8daf716e860e09ff6f1900be13c57)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4455c124dba8daf716e860e09ff6f1900be13c57): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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-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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-2.2%, -0.7%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	2

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)	1.7%	[1.3%, 2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-7.4%, -2.7%]	4
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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1

[fee1-dead]

Could we add the LocalDefId to HirId as a field?

[cjgillot]

Could we add the LocalDefId to HirId as a field?

I'd rather not. There are much fewer nodes that have a dedicated LocalDefId than nodes that have a HirId. Namely, only generic params, struct variants & fields and anonymous constants have a LocalDefId. The others only have a HirId and storing an Option<LocalDefId> would use 4 bytes for each of them.

[fee1-dead]

the regression on externs should be inlining noise. See #102795 (comment)

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[fee1-dead]

LGTM. The memory did regress a bit but not too much.

[fee1-dead]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit df5c11a has been approved by fee1-dead

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Manishearth]

@bors p=1

going to close the tree for non-nevers for a while so they can drain out

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit df5c11a with merge 7c75fe4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fee1-dead
Pushing 7c75fe4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7c75fe4): 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-2.3%, -0.6%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	4

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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.1%, 3.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.6%, -2.7%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.7%]	1