Exhaustiveness: Statically enforce revealing of opaques

[Nadrieril]

In #116821 it was decided that exhaustiveness should operate on the hidden type of an opaque type when relevant. This PR makes sure we consistently reveal opaques within exhaustiveness. This makes it possible to remove reveal_opaque_ty from the TypeCx trait which was an unfortunate implementation detail.

r? @compiler-errors

[Nadrieril]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit cd5760e with merge f47f4cd...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f47f4cd (f47f4cd076d44b91176cc2bb087a3a4298ead14e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f47f4cd): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.8%, 2.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

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: 670.702s -> 672.275s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 312.43 MiB -> 312.39 MiB (-0.01%)

[Nadrieril]

Just good old match-stress being grumpy. Also I see no changes on cycles.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit c352720 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c352720 with merge 132c5bb...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job aarch64-gnu failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

   Compiling cranelift-object v0.103.0
[RUSTC-TIMING] cranelift_module test:false 1.174
[RUSTC-TIMING] cranelift_frontend test:false 1.863
[RUSTC-TIMING] cranelift_object test:false 1.696
##[error]The runner has received a shutdown signal. This can happen when the runner service is stopped, or a manually started runner is canceled.
##[group]Clock drift check
  local time: Sat Jan  6 00:02:06 UTC 2024
  local time: Sat Jan  6 00:02:06 UTC 2024
Session terminated, killing shell... ...killed.
##[error]The operation was canceled.
Cleaning up orphan processes

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[Nadrieril]

I don't understand what cancelled the check. Let's retry?

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c352720 with merge 5bcd86d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 5bcd86d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5bcd86d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.7%, 2.0%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 668.481s -> 668.285s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 311.14 MiB -> 311.06 MiB (-0.02%)