Try to point out when edition 2024 lifetime capture rules cause borrowck issues

[compiler-errors]

Lifetime capture rules in 2024 are modified to capture more lifetimes, which sometimes lead to some non-local borrowck errors. This PR attempts to link these back together with a useful note pointing out the capture rule changes.

This is not a blocking concern, but I'd appreciate feedback (though, again, I'd like to stress that I don't want to block this PR on this): I'm worried about this note drowning in the sea of other diagnostics that borrowck emits. I was tempted to change the level of the note to .span_warn just so it would show up in a different color. Thoughts?

Fixes #130545

Opening as a draft first since it's stacked on #131183.
r? @ghost

[estebank]

Why isn't this a structured suggestion? Edit: because it's checking if it's not the current crate, got it.

[compiler-errors]

r? @estebank, would you be willing to help out with the wording/etc. here? Otherwise, please feel free to reassign. I know the lifetime logic is kinda sketchy, but after all it's a diagnostic so 🤷

[rustbot]

HIR ty lowering was modified

cc @fmease

[compiler-errors]

Let's see the cost of the cross-crate encoding of opaque origin.

@bors try @rust-timer

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3b98411 with merge 17a60f6...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 17a60f6 (17a60f6d33bf58ecd032c2545d56965569adb3e8)

[compiler-errors]

ugh lol

@rust-timer build 17a60f6

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (17a60f6): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.4%)

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)	-2.4%	[-3.0%, -2.1%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.9%)

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)	3.9%	[3.2%, 4.8%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.2%)

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	32
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	32

Bootstrap: 774.169s -> 772.785s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 342.02 MiB -> 342.06 MiB (0.01%)