Make sure to treat only param where clauses as inherent

[compiler-errors]

See the description in the test file.

This PR fixes a bug introduced by #141333, where we considered non-Param where clauses to be "inherent" for the purpose of method probing, which leads to both changes in method ambiguity (see test) and also import usage linting (and thus fixes #145185).

r? @lcnr

[compiler-errors]

We could fast path this for the old trait solver, since we expect things to be normalized always.

[compiler-errors]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

I also want to crater this since it may cause some code to fail due to new ambiguity and missing imports.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 987a165 (987a165cfab916796a8315782b83ac460a651ce2, parent: fce0e74720d199eb7839fdb51af35ac5226da178)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (987a165): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-1.6%, -0.1%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.2%, secondary -2.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-4.5%, -2.6%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 3.6%)

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)	6.7%	[6.2%, 7.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 464.993s -> 463.982s (-0.22%)
Artifact size: 377.36 MiB -> 377.47 MiB (0.03%)

[compiler-errors]

@craterbot check

[craterbot]

👌 Experiment pr-145262 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build 987a165
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[compiler-errors]

0.0% perf regression is definitely important good job perfbot 👍