Hir Param refactor

[JonathanBrouwer]

TODO very wip

Fixes #162677 (comment)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

💔 Test for be17f02 failed: CI. Failed jobs:

• try - dist-aarch64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)
• try - dist-x86_64-linux-quick (web logs, enhanced plaintext logs)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job test-pr-check-2 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[RUSTC-TIMING] rustc_pattern_analysis test:false 0.762
    Checking rustc_monomorphize v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_monomorphize)
[RUSTC-TIMING] rustc_infer test:false 3.929
    Checking rustc_trait_selection v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_trait_selection)
warning: use of deprecated associated function `rustc_span::ErrorGuaranteed::unchecked_error_guaranteed`: should only be used in `DiagCtxtInner::emit_diagnostic`
    --> compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/item.rs:1247:57
     |
1247 |                 kind: hir::TyKind::Err(ErrorGuaranteed::unchecked_error_guaranteed()),
     |                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     |

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b0e36da (b0e36dabc37e5dc5550a520d05ab86f3c07ef73a)
Base parent: f48b3e6 (f48b3e61eeece268609bd920fcca1ded047db7ca)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b0e36da): 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 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)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.3%, 3.2%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	52
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.0%]	56
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.6%, 0.1%]	55

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.8%)

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)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.9%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.6%	[-6.6%, -6.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.7%)

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)	4.3%	[2.2%, 6.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 490.122s -> 491.234s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 408.65 MiB -> 409.03 MiB (0.09%)

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #163829) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.