deeper rustc_builtin_macros cleanups

[cyrgani]

As a followup to #161464, this contains a few more surface cleanups and begins simplifying the mess that SubstructureFields currently is by removing the StaticFields type in favor of just using the VariantData directly.

[rustbot]

Changes to the code generated for builtin derived traits.

cc @nnethercote

[rustbot]

r? @adwinwhite

rustbot has assigned @adwinwhite.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 75 candidates
• Random selection from 17 candidates

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: cc25c3c (cc25c3c8dae9c6546d9fdd11168f5e7c5715a163)
Base parent: e457a7b (e457a7b0d326d67b4322ef0d11bd715cfaeda48f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (cc25c3c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -3.9%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-3.1%, -2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-6.3%, -1.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-3.1%, 2.3%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary -1.1%, secondary 0.3%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.4%, -2.0%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-2.4%, 2.0%]	4

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 476.343s -> 474.625s (-0.36%)
Artifact size: 402.74 MiB -> 402.73 MiB (-0.00%)

[adwinwhite]

Looks good. Just be cautious.
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a510775 (a510775f2a232b0a2ba1de120a471b803f4c3bf5)
Base parent: 0d31508 (0d31508599a7814a7044e9a7a871e3dc5f037753)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a510775): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary -0.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.5%, 2.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.2%, 3.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.9%	[-7.9%, -7.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-0.5%, 2.0%]	4

Cycles

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 2.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.4%, 2.6%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-1.4%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-1.4%, 2.6%]	16

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 480.949s -> 481.341s (0.08%)
Artifact size: 403.34 MiB -> 403.36 MiB (0.01%)