actually provide the correct args to coroutine witnesses

[lcnr]

#145194 accidentally provided all arguments of the closure to the witness, but the witness only takes the generic parameters of the defining scope:

rust/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/closure.rs

Line 164 in 216cdb7

let interior = Ty::new_coroutine_witness(tcx, expr_def_id.to_def_id(), parent_args);

Fixes #145288

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[lcnr]

r? compiler-errors

[rustbot]

compiler-errors is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

[compiler-errors]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 4d84149 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[lcnr]

let's check whether this can be rolled up instead. The bors queue is very long.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: e02b440 (e02b440f79527faea218853ba71bbd61974eed15, parent: 425a9c0a0e365c0b8c6cfd00c2ded83a73bed9a0)

[lqd]

We could just bump its priority above rollups :)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e02b440): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 4.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[4.7%, 4.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -2.7%, secondary -9.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-13.0%	[-16.7%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 470.373s -> 470.202s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 377.75 MiB -> 377.70 MiB (-0.01%)

[lcnr]

the perf impact looks spurious (the only change is in codegen)

@bors rollup=always