Split-up stability_index query

[cjgillot]

This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic stability_index query, and directly implement lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability} queries.

The basic idea is to:

• move per-attribute sanity checks into check_attr.rs;
• move attribute compatibility checks into the MissingStabilityAnnotations visitor;
• progressively dismantle the Annotator visitor and the stability_index query.

The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when #[automatically_derived] is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour.

Perf in #143845 (comment) shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression.

This PR changes check_attr, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.

[cjgillot]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 609a38d with merge 5597f02...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 5597f02 (5597f0229dcd4b4f18b13e858f611b259df9d724)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5597f02): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +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)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	38
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.1%, 3.2%]	27
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.2%]	33
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-1.2%, -0.0%]	30
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.6%, 0.4%]	71

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary -0.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[1.7%, 2.7%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.2%	[-6.2%, -4.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-1.5%, 3.3%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 2.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.3%	[2.3%, 8.8%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.7%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 466.126s -> 464.517s (-0.35%)
Artifact size: 374.63 MiB -> 372.12 MiB (-0.67%)

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #143779) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[jieyouxu]

Thanks, this looks good to me in general. A few minor issues.

I looked at the perf, and agreed that the regression re. unused warnings seems fine to accept.

[jieyouxu]

@rustbot author

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[rylev]

As stated here, the perf regressions were considered acceptable.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged