Elaborate clauses before filtering them in ImpossibleClauses.

[cjgillot]

Fixes #159572

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 75 candidates
• Random selection from 16 candidates

[petrochenkov]

r? types

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7b1f362 (7b1f36247510b6a2eb17cdd4f05f75b2b6abe82b)
Base parent: fc0f51f (fc0f51f5ca44d4586b0e309181382608cd6a8441)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7b1f362): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.6%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 1.6%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -0.4%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.5%, 1.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[0.6%, 2.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.5%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-2.9%, -0.4%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.5%, 1.1%]	6

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 491.246s -> 489.733s (-0.31%)
Artifact size: 390.66 MiB -> 390.54 MiB (-0.03%)

[oli-obk]

Hm... what's the difference between the analyzed list and the list we get from param_env? Can we just analyze the param_env instead of recomputing the list?