experiment: remove lower_to_hir query

[aerooneqq]

The idea is that we have hir_owner query and hir_attr_map which can be called projections of lower_to_hir maybe some improvements if lower_to_hir is removed and those projection queries are used directly.

r? @petrochenkov

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[aerooneqq]

@bors try cancel

[rust-bors]

@aerooneqq: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: f22d6a3 (f22d6a3b412d84bae9079f9bc06d6bdf24e1dcf7)
Base parent: 98594f4 (98594f404ee741f97fefbae4aca049cde911bc94)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f22d6a3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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
@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)	0.5%	[0.2%, 1.4%]	63
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.3%, 1.2%]	16
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-1.7%, -0.1%]	27
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.3%, 1.4%]	73

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 4.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[1.9%, 7.0%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-1.2%, 2.5%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.3%, secondary 2.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.1%, 5.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-2.9%, -2.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 523.739s -> 523.785s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 401.37 MiB -> 401.39 MiB (0.00%)

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: ce2be8c (ce2be8c44c6d5b0f6ba91e6926bcb6369706e61e)
Base parent: 9639eef (9639eefc07db282b25e9c83cdfebb10688ed5114)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ce2be8c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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
@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)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	77
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	31
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.2%, 0.8%]	84

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[1.4%, 1.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-2.4%, 1.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -1.2%, secondary 1.9%)

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)	5.9%	[5.9%, 5.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 482.613s -> 481.294s (-0.27%)
Artifact size: 390.75 MiB -> 391.17 MiB (0.11%)

[aerooneqq]

After some experiments not sure that what I want to achieve is a right thing and not sure that the way I want to achieve it is correct, will rethink it in background maybe.