Delete -Zquery-stats infrastructure

[Mark-Simulacrum]

These statistics are computable from the self-profile data and/or ad-hoc collectable as needed, and in the meantime contribute to rustc bootstrap times -- locally, this PR shaves ~2.5% from rustc_query_impl builds in instruction counts.

If this does lose some functionality we want to keep, I think we should migrate it to self-profile (or a similar interface) rather than this ad-hoc reporting.

[rust-highfive]

@Mark-Simulacrum: no appropriate reviewer found, use r? to override

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r? @michaelwoerister perhaps?

@bors try @rust-timer queue

I suspect perf may not show as much of a win in terms of bootstrap time, but might as well run it just to see.

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 257839b with merge b2db7d6eecf72e01e8626130060554d689aa73fa...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b2db7d6eecf72e01e8626130060554d689aa73fa (b2db7d6eecf72e01e8626130060554d689aa73fa)

[rust-timer]

Queued b2db7d6eecf72e01e8626130060554d689aa73fa with parent 7b43cfc, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b2db7d6eecf72e01e8626130060554d689aa73fa): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 3 relevant regressions 😿 to instruction counts.

• Average relevant regression: 1.0%
• Largest regression in instruction counts: 1.0% on incr-unchanged builds of ctfe-stress-4 check

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Regression seems reproducible locally but is likely to be optimizer noise. Improvement for rustc_query_impl does seem real, though (-2 seconds, roughly, out of 84).

[michaelwoerister]

I'm fine with removing this but I want to give at least @cjgillot a chance to weigh in. I don't know who else could be using it. Let's cc @rust-lang/wg-incr-comp: Is anybody still using this?

[cjgillot]

I'm not using it. Fine with removing.

[Aaron1011]

I'm fine with this removal as well

[michaelwoerister]

OK! @bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 257839b has been approved by michaelwoerister

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 257839b with merge 9747ee4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: michaelwoerister
Pushing 9747ee4 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9747ee4): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. 44 results were found to be statistically significant but too small to be relevant.

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression