Support return-type bounds on associated methods from supertraits

[compiler-errors]

Support T: Trait<method(): Bound> when method comes from a supertrait, aligning it with the behavior of associated type bounds (both equality and trait bounds).

The only wrinkle is that I have to extend super_predicates_that_define_assoc_type to look for all items, not just AssocKind::Ty. This will also be needed to support feature(associated_const_equality) as well, which is subtly broken when it comes to supertraits, though this PR does not fix those yet. There's a slight chance there's a perf regression here, in which case I guess I could split it out into a separate query.

[rustbot]

r? @cjgillot

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

[compiler-errors]

oops forgot about perf run

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 76802e3 with merge f8c0fd4d2d0c4d72a56ea18b2231c4cab095f66b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f8c0fd4d2d0c4d72a56ea18b2231c4cab095f66b (f8c0fd4d2d0c4d72a56ea18b2231c4cab095f66b)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: f8c0fd4d2d0c4d72a56ea18b2231c4cab095f66b (f8c0fd4d2d0c4d72a56ea18b2231c4cab095f66b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f8c0fd4d2d0c4d72a56ea18b2231c4cab095f66b): 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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	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: 654.067s -> 653.705s (-0.06%)

[cjgillot]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 76802e3 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 76802e3 with merge 0dddad0...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing 0dddad0 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0dddad0): 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)	1.2%	[0.1%, 2.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.5%	[-5.0%, -4.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-5.0%, 2.3%]	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: 652.816s -> 653.81s (0.15%)