Revert "Add some extra information to opaque type cycle errors"

[oli-obk]

This reverts commit 9e98feb, as it caused a performance regression.

it was added in #113320

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @fee1-dead (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 6e03965 with merge c4d246e77b6bf8a9b8f432edaa9eb4e73e77caf1...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c4d246e77b6bf8a9b8f432edaa9eb4e73e77caf1 (c4d246e77b6bf8a9b8f432edaa9eb4e73e77caf1)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c4d246e77b6bf8a9b8f432edaa9eb4e73e77caf1): 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)	0.9%	[0.5%, 1.3%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.5%, 1.3%]	12

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

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: 656.666s -> 658.992s (0.35%)

[oli-obk]

??! perf got even worse. Or are these actually noise 🤔 I'm gonna need to do a per-commit perf run, don't I?

[lqd]

there is some noise on bitmaps right now (https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=0d50ab77397d7278500abd22d34de0e10940b2ee&end=b112bc5529cfa8d8a9000f7a85278ece3232e579&stat=instructions:u), but: wat.

[oli-obk]

see #113587 for a full revert that did not show a change in perf at all