Avoid a track_errors by bubbling up most errors from check_well_formed

[oli-obk]

I believe track_errors is mostly papering over issues that a sufficiently convoluted query graph can hit. I made this change, while the actual change I want to do is to stop bailing out early on errors, and instead use this new ErrorGuaranteed to invoke check_well_formed for individual items before doing all the typeck logic on them.

This works towards resolving #97477 and various other ICEs, as well as allowing us to use parallel rustc more (which is currently rather limited/bottlenecked due to the very sequential nature in which we do rustc_hir_analysis::check_crate)

cc @SparrowLii @Zoxc for the new try_par_for_each_in function

[rustbot]

r? @cjgillot

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

[cjgillot]

This may have a perf effect. If the dependency is green, query engine may still try to recompute a value.

However, none is really required. If the dependency is green, we know that the result is Ok(()), otherwise the previous compilation session was doomed. If the dependency is red, the result is given by the full query.
Should 'ensure' return a Result<(), Error Guaranteed> directly?

[oli-obk]

Hmm... so if ensure actually computes, return the result, otherwise return Ok(()). Seems doable

[oli-obk]

I implemented a version where you need to manually tag queries to allow for this. The reason for that is that the current macro that generates all the query methods on the TyCtxt* types would need a major refactor if we wanted to do it magically on the query return type

[cjgillot]

Should we return Ok in all cases?

[oli-obk]

The later checks are different, I believe we should keep them as is and not make the hack worse 😃

[cjgillot]

Should we register errors from this function too ?

[oli-obk]

Yes, but I wanna do small PRs 😁

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f61b59e with merge 636aa55...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 636aa55 (636aa55c9656f43730f73d7f11610300e710af31)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (636aa55): 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)	11.3%	[0.4%, 57.1%]	112
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	7.9%	[0.3%, 60.9%]	47
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	11.3%	[0.4%, 57.1%]	112

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)	6.3%	[1.6%, 14.3%]	84
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.5%	[0.8%, 14.4%]	25
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.6%, -3.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	6.3%	[1.6%, 14.3%]	84

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)	11.6%	[1.1%, 45.8%]	109
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	11.2%	[1.4%, 45.4%]	30
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	11.6%	[1.1%, 45.8%]	109

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 627.092s -> 629.924s (0.45%)
Artifact size: 305.13 MiB -> 305.05 MiB (-0.03%)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0da8104 with merge c5dfd1e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c5dfd1e (c5dfd1e3501c5ba2dc37f5ab0e6639c92b3463c2)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c5dfd1e): 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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	54
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.4%, 1.5%]	19
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	54

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)	1.6%	[1.1%, 2.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-3.3%, -0.7%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	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)	2.2%	[2.1%, 2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-2.1%, -1.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 629.781s -> 631.187s (0.22%)
Artifact size: 303.98 MiB -> 304.08 MiB (0.03%)

[cjgillot]

r=me with one nit

[cjgillot]

Could you add a comment explaining why we can fall back to Ok(())?

[oli-obk]

@bors r=cjgillot

[bors]

📌 Commit fe8ebb1 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit fe8ebb1 with merge a56bd2b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing a56bd2b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a56bd2b): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	0.9%	[0.8%, 1.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
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: 304.33 MiB -> 304.30 MiB (-0.01%)

[Zoxc]

This does look at bit expensive. It's probably a good idea to measure the performance impact of it. It might be a better idea to write the error to a mutex / atomic instead.

[oli-obk]

Oof. I'll build some benchmarks. Seems bad if rayon's fold is more expensive than doing this manually.