tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all Lrc, replaced with Arc

[safinaskar]

tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all Lrc, replaced with Arc

This is continuation of #132282 .

I'm pretty sure I did everything right. In particular, I searched all occurrences of Lrc in submodules and made sure that they don't need replacement.

There are other possibilities, through.

We can define enum Lrc<T> { Rc(Rc<T>), Arc(Arc<T>) }. Or we can make Lrc a union and on every clone we can read from special thread-local variable. Or we can add a generic parameter to Lrc and, yes, this parameter will be everywhere across all codebase.

So, if you think we should take some alternative approach, then don't merge this PR. But if it is decided to stick with Arc, then, please, merge.

cc "Parallel Rustc Front-end" ( #113349 )

r? SparrowLii

@rustbot label WG-compiler-parallel

[rustbot]

The rustc-dev-guide subtree was changed. If this PR only touches the dev guide consider submitting a PR directly to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide otherwise thank you for updating the dev guide with your changes.

cc @BoxyUwU, @jieyouxu, @Kobzol

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @TaKO8Ki

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

The rustc-dev-guide subtree was changed. If this PR only touches the dev guide consider submitting a PR directly to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide otherwise thank you for updating the dev guide with your changes.

cc @BoxyUwU, @jieyouxu, @Kobzol

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @TaKO8Ki

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

[safinaskar]

I rebased

[SparrowLii]

This is our way forward ：) Thanks!
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0a21f1d with merge c1d3b4f...

[SparrowLii]

The compiler should in fact already use Arc as Lrc, this PR should have no substantial impact, perf testing is just for verification.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c1d3b4f (c1d3b4f4788aac48b595223d6a1c5842755ab015)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c1d3b4f): 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 (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)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
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: 776.632s -> 777.793s (0.15%)
Artifact size: 328.78 MiB -> 328.78 MiB (0.00%)

[safinaskar]

@SparrowLii , why this is not merged?

[SparrowLii]

Just waited a while in case there were other opinions

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 0a21f1d has been approved by SparrowLii

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0a21f1d with merge 2f92f05...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: SparrowLii
Pushing 2f92f05 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2f92f05): comparison URL.

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

@rustbot label: -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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 3.9%)

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)	3.9%	[3.9%, 3.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -3.7%, secondary 2.3%)

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)	2.3%	[2.1%, 2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-6.4%, -1.1%]	12
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-6.4%, -1.1%]	12

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 779.996s -> 778.937s (-0.14%)
Artifact size: 329.00 MiB -> 329.00 MiB (0.00%)