Make most rustc_type_ir kinds Copy by default

[compiler-errors]

1. There's no reason why TyKind and ConstKind/ConstData can't be Copy. This allows us to avoid needing a typed arena for the two types.
2. Simplify some impls into derives.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rustbot]

r? @BoxyUwU

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 985f378 with merge e918fba...

[jackh726]

It might be too late for this, but should be careful.

At one point, rust-analyzer's types were not Copy. Not sure if that's still the case.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: e918fba (e918fba6d9e21e705af4f04b1332fe2b3f820b93)

[compiler-errors]

The non-rustc_type_ir part of this PR has nothing to do with RA needing Clone-only types. We can still make the code in rustc_type_ir and rustc_next_trait_solver depend on Clone only without doing much work.

As for the implementations I removed, I can re-add them if rust-analyzer needs them. Until then, I'd rather simplify the code. @lcnr also has discussed a bit with the r-a folks about needing Copy-only types: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/interning.20and.20requiring.20.60Copy.60/near/404852245

[jackh726]

Yeah, happy to simplify now and revert back things as needed! Just figured I'd bring this up.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e918fba): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1

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: 670.568s -> 670.86s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 314.19 MiB -> 314.21 MiB (0.00%)

[compiler-errors]

cool

@rustbot ready

[jackh726]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f3218b2 has been approved by jackh726

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[BoxyUwU]

r? @jackh726

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f3218b2 with merge 27d8a57...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jackh726
Pushing 27d8a57 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (27d8a57): 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

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
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: 673.595s -> 673.136s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 312.31 MiB -> 312.33 MiB (0.01%)