Add type-check to offload intrinisc calls

[Sa4dUs]

As discussed in zulip, in order to support sufficiently generic kernel functions, we need to move away from checking arguments and return types solely via traits on the intrinsic declaration. Instead, these validation checks are now performed during the type-checking phase.

r? @ZuseZ4

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[ZuseZ4]

@bors r+ rollup

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 43ebcda has been approved by ZuseZ4

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jhpratt]

@rust-timer build 13870f3

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (13870f3): 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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.6%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.3%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.2%, 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)	1.5%	[0.6%, 2.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[1.4%, 3.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-1.2%, -0.4%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.7%, -0.5%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-1.2%, 2.5%]	9

Cycles

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -1.0%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.4%, 1.5%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[0.5%, 6.7%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.8%, -0.6%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.4%	[-17.1%, -0.5%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-1.8%, 1.5%]	8

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 491.471s -> 491.257s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 390.58 MiB -> 390.53 MiB (-0.01%)

[ZuseZ4]

A little bit of extra work is expected and ok, but 0.3% still feels a tad higher than what I'd have expected just from checking functions for whether they have an attribute applied to them.

@Sa4dUs can you check if there's any work that we should gate better on the offload flags?

@rustbot perf-regression