Stop doing expensive work in opt_suggest_box_span eagerly

[compiler-errors]

This PR defers the can_coerce and predicate_must_hold_modulo_regions calls in opt_suggest_box_span, and instead defers it until error reporting. This requires pulling the logic out of note_obligation_cause_code and into coercion, where we have access to the trait solver.

This also allows us to remove TypeVariableOriginKind::OpaqueTypeInference.

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

rustbot has assigned @TaKO8Ki.
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

[compiler-errors]

r? compiler

[fee1-dead]

r=me after a small nit

[fee1-dead]

would probably make sense to document that the DefId return type is of the AliasTy for the expectation. A little bit unclear by the name. Maybe it should be renamed to something like alias_ty_id_from_rpit_expectation, which wouldn't need documentation on the return type I suppose.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r=fee1-dead

[bors]

📌 Commit 864e1fb has been approved by fee1-dead

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 864e1fb with merge d5db7fb...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fee1-dead
Pushing d5db7fb to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d5db7fb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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%, 0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	0.9%	[0.4%, 1.3%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.8%, 1.3%]	7

Cycles

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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.8%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.3%, 2.8%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-3.0%, 0.8%]	8

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 670.226s -> 670.379s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 315.70 MiB -> 315.75 MiB (0.01%)