Introduce Unnormalized wrapper

[adwinwhite]

View all comments

This is the first step of the eager normalization series.

This PR introduce an Unnormalized wrapper and make most normalization routines consume it. The purpose is to make normalization explicit.
This PR contains no behavior change.

API changes are in the first two commit.
There're some normalization routines left untouched:

• normalize in the type checker of borrowck: better do it together with field.ty() returning Unnormalized.
• normalize_with_depth: only used inside the old solver. Can be done later.
• query_normalize: rarely used.
• misc local normalization helpers.

The compiler errors are mostly fixed via ast-grep, with exceptions handled manually.

[adwinwhite]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[adwinwhite]

@bors try cancel

[rust-bors]

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

• https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/24231666610

[adwinwhite]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 10d0ef4 (10d0ef4e7995ca1d162f402be9f0b39b15d7a78a, parent: 7659cec4ed1457bc0d1f636127e66e8fe5008928)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (10d0ef4): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.4%, secondary -6.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.4%	[-6.4%, -6.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.1%, 2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-3.8%, -3.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 492.281s -> 489.321s (-0.60%)
Artifact size: 395.57 MiB -> 395.56 MiB (-0.00%)

[adwinwhite]

r? @lcnr

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: lcnr
Duration: 3h 19m 8s
Pushing e22c616 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 38799a3 (parent) -> e22c616 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 370 test diffs

370 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard e22c616e4e87914135c1db261a03e0437255335e --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend: 1h 48m -> 2h 36m (+44.4%)
2. i686-gnu-nopt-2: 1h 44m -> 2h 20m (+34.5%)
3. x86_64-mingw-1: 3h 4m -> 2h 12m (-28.1%)
4. dist-i686-msvc: 1h 52m -> 2h 21m (+26.2%)
5. dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw: 1h 55m -> 1h 26m (-25.3%)
6. x86_64-gnu-nopt: 2h 28m -> 1h 51m (-25.1%)
7. x86_64-msvc-1: 2h 43m -> 2h 2m (-25.0%)
8. x86_64-gnu-tools: 54m 45s -> 1h 3m (+15.7%)
9. dist-s390x-linux: 1h 27m -> 1h 14m (-15.2%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-1: 1h 7m -> 1h 17m (+14.6%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e22c616): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -6.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.5%	[-6.5%, -6.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 490.954s -> 507.073s (3.28%)
Artifact size: 394.29 MiB -> 394.31 MiB (0.00%)