Capture lifetimes for associated type bounds destined to be lowered to opaques

[compiler-errors]

Some associated type bounds get lowered to opaques, but they're not represented in the AST as opaques.

That means that we never collect lifetimes for them (record_lifetime_params_for_impl_trait) which are used currently for RPITITs, which capture all of their in-scope lifetimes¹. This means that the nested RPITITs that arise from some type like impl Foo<Type: Bar> (~> impl Foo<Type = impl Bar>) don't capture any lifetimes, leading to ICEs.

This PR makes sure we collect the lifetimes for associated type bounds as well, and make sure that they are set up correctly for opaque type lowering later.

Fixes #115360

Footnotes

1. Make RPITITs capture all in-scope lifetimes #114489 ↩

[rustbot]

r? @jackh726

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

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f1679f7 with merge d270d1d991b419b84f01779b3588279d4ab60272...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d270d1d991b419b84f01779b3588279d4ab60272 (d270d1d991b419b84f01779b3588279d4ab60272)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d270d1d991b419b84f01779b3588279d4ab60272 (d270d1d991b419b84f01779b3588279d4ab60272)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d270d1d991b419b84f01779b3588279d4ab60272): 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)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-2.0%, -1.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-4.1%, -2.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-2.0%, 1.5%]	3

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: 631.943s -> 630.735s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 316.62 MiB -> 316.59 MiB (-0.01%)

[jackh726]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f1679f7 has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f1679f7 with merge 2f5df8a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing 2f5df8a to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2f5df8a): 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)	1.6%	[1.3%, 2.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-1.6%, 2.1%]	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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 630.392s -> 630.791s (0.06%)
Artifact size: 316.46 MiB -> 316.37 MiB (-0.03%)