Rollup of 7 pull requests

[compiler-errors]

Successful merges:

• style-guide: When breaking binops handle multi-line first operand better #119838 (style-guide: When breaking binops handle multi-line first operand better)
• Use a proper probe for shadowing impl #124844 (Use a proper probe for shadowing impl)
• Migrate run-make/issue-14500 to new rmake.rs format #125047 (Migrate run-make/issue-14500 to new rmake.rs format)
• only find segs chain for missing methods when no available candidates #125080 (only find segs chain for missing methods when no available candidates)
• Uplift AliasTy and AliasTerm #125088 (Uplift AliasTy and AliasTerm)
• Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're in a suggestion #125100 (Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're in a suggestion)
• Use new utility functions/methods in run-make tests #125118 (Use new utility functions/methods in run-make tests)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=7

[bors]

📌 Commit 31016d5 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 31016d5 with merge ac385a5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing ac385a5 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#119838	style-guide: When breaking binops handle multi-line first o…	2cfdb84d278d580881cf1cc37cf5f9c56ae71b61 (link)
#124844	Use a proper probe for shadowing impl	b6ce40ac37b0ada020b88a5c443330c45c0b9a5e (link)
#125047	Migrate run-make/issue-14500 to new rmake.rs format	43bc4094c06e189d4386ee2be4692195dd0dcceb (link)
#125080	only find segs chain for missing methods when no available …	39078774e9af84e93f49ebdfc8f4d9aa87d60d22 (link)
#125088	Uplift AliasTy and AliasTerm	3dd3328e4b318aa8f7df6dd6f687b53f7ad51b22 (link)
#125100	Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're i…	9938f5c2f391af3aba98ac94c809a8c9a7afcd3b (link)
#125118	Use new utility functions/methods in run-make tests	e93cf44fbaf7956996f116e143f54dc58d057c77 (link)

previous master: bdfd941f4d

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ac385a5): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 1.0%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

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: 676.581s -> 679.638s (0.45%)
Artifact size: 315.96 MiB -> 316.03 MiB (0.02%)

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build b6ce40a

[lqd]

That PR should only target the new solver 🤔

[Kobzol]

It saw like some trait/diagnostics stuff, so I just planned to try all in turn 😅 I wonder if we can schedule multiple of them at once?

@rust-timer build 3907877

[compiler-errors]

Yeah, I started a perf build for a more likely PR (the AliasTy one): #125088 (comment)

[Kobzol]

Ah, right, we probably can't schedule multiple runs on the same PR, that's annoying. Thanks.

[lqd]

A bit strange, I think I saw multiple runs being asked concurrently in the same rollup PR in the past before... (maybe that person did ask, but the bot ignored the multiple requests :3)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b6ce40a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.6%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 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)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.3%)

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)	2.3%	[1.2%, 4.1%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[1.2%, 4.1%]	5

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 676.581s -> 676.207s (-0.06%)
Artifact size: 315.96 MiB -> 316.08 MiB (0.04%)

[compiler-errors]

It's due to #125088 (comment), though nothing strikes me as immediately obviously less performant in that PR, except for perhaps the assertions I changed.