Apply nested goals certainty to InspectGoals for normalizes-to

[compiler-errors]

...so that normalizes-to goals don't have Certainty::Yes even if they have nested goals which don't hold.

r? lcnr

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor

This PR changes a file inside tests/crashes. If a crash was fixed, please move into the corresponding ui subdir and add 'Fixes #' to the PR description to autoclose the issue upon merge.

[compiler-errors]

Here's the major change. Instead of evaluating the goal in this probe and throwing away nested obligations, then later constraining the RHS, we now evaluate the goal, constrain the RHS, and evaluate nested obligations all together, and stash the resulting certainty.

Then later on where we used to constrain the RHS in the InspectGoal::new constructor, we just apply that certainty.

[compiler-errors]

This test was coincidentally fixed, but not for a particularly good reason. It's properly fixed in #142126.

[compiler-errors]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

Even if perf is bad, we still definitely need to do this for proof trees not to be wrong.

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 19be2d3 with merge 7cf36c7…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

[compiler-errors]

Blocking this on #142085 so that I can remove the hack it introduces for normalizes-to goals.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 7cf36c7 (7cf36c7d59c354b06abb77c533b6a03fc4568472)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7cf36c7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[4.6%, 5.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.9%, -2.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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: 751.682s -> 751.844s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 371.84 MiB -> 371.90 MiB (0.02%)