Remove unused/unnecessary features

[clubby789]

The bulk of the actual code changes here is replacing try blocks with equivalent closures. I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea since it may have perf impact, happy to revert if that's the case/the change is unwanted.

I also removed a lot of recursion_limit = "256" since everything seems to build fine without that and most don't have any comment justifying it.

[rustbot]

r? @WaffleLapkin

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

[rustbot]

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @TaKO8Ki

This PR changes Stable MIR

cc @oli-obk, @celinval, @spastorino, @ouz-a

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in need_type_info.rs

cc @lcnr

rustc_errors::translation was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @TaKO8Ki

[compiler-errors]

What's the motivation for removing try blocks? The rest of the changes seem fine, but there's no bad reason to keep "testing" try blocks in the compiler imo.

[clubby789]

Mostly just because it was a very easy change to make to cut down on unstable features - but yeah, I'll restore them

[WaffleLapkin]

Yeah, +1 to what @compiler-errors said — there isn't really a reason to avoid try blocks.

And while it's possible to remove their uses, it makes the code worse imo.

[compiler-errors]

This is fine, though I guess I don't necessarily agree that we should be removing harmless libs features like .get_or_insert_with_default().

[compiler-errors]

Should be fine tho

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 9a17b9f has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[cjgillot]

Generally, should this PR be limited to removing the attributes? Testing library features is normal in the compiler.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r-

Yeah, let's just revert all the libs feature changes.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e5a520f has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

📌 Commit 5bb0097 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #120251) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[clubby789]

@bors r=compiler-errors

[bors]

📌 Commit cd4a889 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[clubby789]

@bors r-
Looks like there was a conflict (the queue page says this isn't queued any more but no notification from Bors here)?

[clubby789]

Found another conflict while fixing that one so
@bors r=compiler-errors rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit fd29f74 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit fd29f74 with merge 69db514...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 69db514 to master...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 69db514 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (69db514): 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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[2.6%, 3.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-3.7%, -3.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.2%	[-4.2%, -4.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-3.7%, -3.7%]	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: 663.451s -> 662.651s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 308.15 MiB -> 308.15 MiB (-0.00%)