Register all clauses of DefKind::Fn as obligations

[lumi-me-not]

This fixes #151319 by adding the clauses of a function definition as obligations in the functions own param_env.

r? @lcnr

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust Project is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @lcnr (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[lcnr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

try build for a crater run with this change

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: bd72bf2 (bd72bf234a6bb5da5aa1550a318f391e3fbad54f)
Base parent: c42ac5f (c42ac5fd59628ea7e2f52af5944c2aaac3f0e7f6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bd72bf2): 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.6%	[0.1%, 3.0%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	11

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary -1.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.1%, 3.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.8%, -3.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.1%, 3.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.6%, secondary 2.1%)

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)	2.1%	[2.0%, 2.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-3.4%, -1.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-3.4%, -1.8%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.678s -> 473.983s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 402.79 MiB -> 402.75 MiB (-0.01%)

[lcnr]

@craterbot check

[craterbot]

👌 Experiment pr-161319 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build bd72bf2
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[lcnr]

didn't realize, we should move this to check::wfcheck which already has a function to check functions. feel free to wait until after the crater run is done

View changes since the review

[theemathas]

@craterbot cancel

See #162233

[craterbot]

🗑️ Experiment pr-161319 deleted!

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more