Handle rustc_middle cases of rustc::potential_query_instability lint

[ismailarilik]

This PR removes #![allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)] line from compiler/rustc_middle/src/lib.rs and converts FxHash{Map,Set} types into FxIndex{Map,Set} to suppress lint errors.

A somewhat tracking issue: #84447

r? @compiler-errors

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @compiler-errors (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

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #131263) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #132282) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[compiler-errors]

I'm gonna re-roll this so this PR gets more attention, sorry for my inactivity.

r? compiler

But also reassigning to author sicne I think this PR still needs updating.

@rustbot author

[SparrowLii]

@ismailarilik Can you rebase the PR today? I'm in holiday tomorrow so I"d like to have a review before that :)

[SparrowLii]

r? compiler cause I'm going to the holidays in the next few days.

And I suggest to run a rustc perf when it's ready since this PR change the cache struct

[Dylan-DPC]

@ismailarilik any updates on this? thanks

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 6bf8881 with merge 9d711dc...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 9d711dc (9d711dcae3bcbeb0efda0beffb8e957488893e63)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9d711dc): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.4%, 0.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.8%)

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)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.4%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.9%, -0.4%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-3.7%, -3.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-1.9%, 1.4%]	22

Cycles

Results (primary -0.2%)

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%, 0.9%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.0%, -0.4%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.0%, 0.9%]	20

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 768.358s -> 769.173s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 365.48 MiB -> 365.43 MiB (-0.01%)

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 2426dbc has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2426dbc with merge 7295b08...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 7295b08 to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 4a0969e (parent) -> 7295b08 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 7295b08a17d1107155acd4b552069e3705b0ab1f --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-apple: 8260.1s -> 10045.2s (21.6%)
2. dist-apple-various: 6615.2s -> 7972.3s (20.5%)
3. x86_64-apple-2: 5720.8s -> 4724.5s (-17.4%)
4. x86_64-apple-1: 9360.6s -> 8044.2s (-14.1%)
5. dist-x86_64-illumos: 6240.1s -> 5763.6s (-7.6%)
6. dist-x86_64-freebsd: 4808.8s -> 5100.8s (6.1%)
7. dist-aarch64-linux: 5259.9s -> 5549.8s (5.5%)
8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 5979.8s -> 6289.2s (5.2%)
9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3: 6805.2s -> 7141.5s (4.9%)
10. dist-x86_64-mingw: 7638.6s -> 8011.9s (4.9%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7295b08): 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 (primary -0.2%, secondary 2.4%)

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%	[1.2%, 3.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.4%, -0.4%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.4%, 3.4%]	18

Cycles

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary -2.2%)

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%, 1.1%]	16
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-6.8%, -0.4%]	16
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.9%, -1.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-6.8%, 1.1%]	32

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 770.615s -> 771.005s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 365.41 MiB -> 365.42 MiB (0.00%)