Capture all lifetimes for TAITs and impl trait in associated types

[oli-obk]

This reverts commit cb94675, reversing changes made to 57781b2. (This is only true for the tests, the change itself was done from scratch, as the compiler has diverged sufficiently for a revert to not make sense anymore).

This implements the lang team decision from this meeting: https://hackmd.io/sFaSIMJOQcuwCdnUvCxtuQ?view

r? @cjgillot on the impl

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @cjgillot (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[compiler-errors]

r=me on impl

[compiler-errors]

Also, it may be useful to cherry-pick ba07937b29b0381a4aa8307c9b45d98d5348ca02 (deleting the RPITIT-specific test) and add some variance tests for TAITs.

something like:

#![rustc_variance_of_opaques]

type Foo<'a, 'b: 'b, T> = impl Sized; //~ ERROR [o, o, o]

[oli-obk]

@bors r=compiler-errors

[bors]

📌 Commit e82ccd5 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e82ccd5 with merge ac02e40...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing ac02e40 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ac02e40): 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)	2.3%	[1.4%, 3.0%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.3%, 3.1%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-1.4%, -1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[-1.4%, 3.0%]	4

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)	3.9%	[3.2%, 4.4%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 631.943s -> 632.335s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 316.62 MiB -> 316.60 MiB (-0.01%)