Merge PatKind::Path into PatKind::Lit

[oli-obk]

Follow-up to #134228

We always had a duplication where Paths could be represented as PatKind::Path or PatKind::Lit(ExprKind::Path). We had to handle both everywhere, and still do after #134228, so I'm removing it now.

[rustbot]

r? @BoxyUwU

rustbot has assigned @BoxyUwU.
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

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #134788) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2269e1f with merge 801e8e4...

[oli-obk]

@rust-timer build 995b2b4

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (995b2b4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.1%, 4.8%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[0.1%, 4.8%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary 1.7%)

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)	1.7%	[1.4%, 2.0%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-2.3%, 2.0%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary 1.1%, secondary -2.0%)

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)	2.7%	[1.6%, 3.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.5%, -1.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[-2.5%, 3.7%]	6

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 764.62s -> 762.612s (-0.26%)
Artifact size: 326.02 MiB -> 326.03 MiB (0.00%)

[oli-obk]

I'm going a bit mad here. I can't tell what could possibly cause incremental cache invalidations causing the queries to be recomputed.

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[oli-obk]

trying without the actual PatKind::Path elimination, to make sure it's not related to the preceding commits

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9d7525b with merge dbdec20ac1ab520aba07b8f34c6f1cf35d061a63...

[Nadrieril]

deref patterns need to support literals having a different type than the pattern (e.g. &str pattern for String types)

Is that deref_patterns (the one with an explicit deref! syntax) or string_deref_patterns (the one just for strings)? If it's string_deref_patterns you can drop that gate, it's not part of any larger design at the moment and not implemented very cleanly imo.

Tho while writing this I realized we could add a new side table for such transformations... gonna try that

That's how we handle when match ergonomics change types so that sounds good.

[oli-obk]

@rust-timer build dbdec20

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (dbdec20): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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 is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.8%, secondary -0.2%)

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)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-1.8%, -1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.8%	[-1.8%, -1.8%]	1

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: 764.673s -> 764.873s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 326.10 MiB -> 326.08 MiB (-0.01%)

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d327296 with merge 0b20e85...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0b20e85 (0b20e8534dab145fb6b72422132b00db3f76db6e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0b20e85): 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 (primary 1.1%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[0.6%, 3.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.6%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

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: 766.411s -> 764.6s (-0.24%)
Artifact size: 325.99 MiB -> 326.01 MiB (0.01%)