Map RPIT duplicated lifetimes back to fn captured lifetimes

[compiler-errors]

Use the lifetime_mapping to map an RPIT's captured lifetimes back to the early- or late-bound lifetimes from its parent function. We may be going thru several layers of mapping, since opaques can be nested, so we introduce TyCtxt::map_rpit_lifetime_to_fn_lifetime to loop through several opaques worth of mapping, and handle turning it into a ty::Region as well.

We can then use this instead of the identity substs for RPITs in check_opaque_meets_bounds to address #114285.

We can then also use map_rpit_lifetime_to_fn_lifetime to properly install bidirectional-outlives predicates for both RPITs and RPITITs. This addresses #114601.

I based this on #114574, but I don't actually know how much of that PR we still need, so some code may be redundant now... 🤷

---

Fixes #114597
Fixes #114579
Fixes #114285

Also fixes #114601, since it turns out we had other bugs with RPITITs and their duplicated lifetime params 😅.

Supersedes #114574

r? @oli-obk

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit bc461799fc9e220b2024d76858cf84251b73af70 with merge 82ab41b39edc01008508d4b458cc34ede29be16b...

[compiler-errors]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 688c743ff88e9db224a16751dc5a1da4c949c6c6 with merge f66ef3d2de1894e1454094853abcdeb83cd3e06d...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f66ef3d2de1894e1454094853abcdeb83cd3e06d (f66ef3d2de1894e1454094853abcdeb83cd3e06d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f66ef3d2de1894e1454094853abcdeb83cd3e06d): 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

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)	3.8%	[3.8%, 3.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 652.752s -> 650.391s (-0.36%)

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 0adf704 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0adf704 with merge bf62436...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing bf62436 to master...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing bf62436 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bf62436): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.8%	[-1.1%, -0.6%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1

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)	1.8%	[0.8%, 2.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 633.541s -> 631.076s (-0.39%)