Support async recursive calls (as long as they have indirection)

[compiler-errors]

Before #101692, we stored coroutine witness types directly inside of the coroutine. That means that a coroutine could not contain itself (as a witness field) without creating a cycle in the type representation of the coroutine, which we detected with the OpaqueTypeExpander, which is used to detect cycles when expanding opaque types after that are inferred to contain themselves.

After -Zdrop-tracking-mir was stabilized, we no longer store these generator witness fields directly, but instead behind a def-id based query. That means there is no technical obstacle in the compiler preventing coroutines from containing themselves per se, other than the fact that for a coroutine to have a non-infinite layout, it must contain itself wrapped in a layer of allocation indirection (like a Box).

This means that it should be valid for this code to work:

async fn async_fibonacci(i: u32) -> u32 {
    if i == 0 || i == 1 {
        i
    } else {
        Box::pin(async_fibonacci(i - 1)).await 
          + Box::pin(async_fibonacci(i - 2)).await
    }
}

Whereas previously, you'd need to coerce the future to Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = ...>> before awaiting it, to prevent the async's desugared coroutine from containing itself across as await point.

This PR does two things:

1. Only report an error if an opaque expansion cycle is detected not through coroutine witness fields.
   • Instead, if we find an opaque cycle through coroutine witness fields, we compute the layout of the coroutine. If that results in a cycle error, we report it as a recursive async fn.
2. Reworks the way we report layout errors having to do with coroutines, to make up for the diagnostic regressions introduced by (1.). We actually do even better now, pointing out the call sites of the recursion!

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit d0af0e3 with merge 4b93a18...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit ac3c93c with merge 58b1b3c...

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 8b4b867 with merge ab5373f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ab5373f (ab5373fe664830d5d63e2d9d47289c64a6d946c8)

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit 5b5393d has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #119606) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[compiler-errors]

rebased

@bors r=lcnr

[bors]

📌 Commit 9a75603 has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 9a75603 with merge dc64103...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing dc64103 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (dc64103): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	3

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)	2.1%	[1.6%, 2.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.3%	[0.8%, 2.0%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.8%, -2.1%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[-0.5%, 2.7%]	5

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: 669.826s -> 669.888s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 308.53 MiB -> 308.54 MiB (0.00%)

[pnkfelix]

• this is weird, it looks like an inverse blip occurred on the preceding PR (Rollup of 7 pull requests #119760), where tt-muncher check incr-unchanged had a single point with -0.2% instruction-count, and then it preceding to "return to normal" on the succeeding PRs.
• (Its harder for me to explain away "inverse blips" ...)
• but at the same time, this does not seem like a significant regression by our usual metrics.
• marking as triaged.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged