Dont rerun stalled goals if erased runs succeeded*

[jdonszelmann]

* Unless the succesful erased run was conditional on the state of opaque type storage, and the opaque type storage changed in a significant way

r? @lcnr

[jdonszelmann]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d5c2f17 (d5c2f17a7a29a89c4511d0c6ab7f0491f9a500d5, parent: b5d46ecb51c3e4134b82570cfe718f093daa6390)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d5c2f17): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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
@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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-40.2%	[-68.8%, -10.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.0%, secondary -38.9%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-5.2%, -0.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-38.9%	[-55.0%, -2.2%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-5.2%, -0.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -34.3%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-34.3%	[-70.8%, -2.8%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 522.814s -> 518.78s (-0.77%)
Artifact size: 400.99 MiB -> 401.54 MiB (0.14%)

[lcnr]

This should be unreachable, should it not? 🤔 we should never propagate to the parent and then reprove the goal in our EvalCtxt

View changes since the review