rustc_metadata: Switch crate data iteration from a callback to iterator

[petrochenkov]

The iteration looks more conventional this way, and some allocations are avoided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @nagisa

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 046a682 with merge eba8c28d9084567cf02500425ff31399ea645e36...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: eba8c28d9084567cf02500425ff31399ea645e36 (eba8c28d9084567cf02500425ff31399ea645e36)

[rust-timer]

Queued eba8c28d9084567cf02500425ff31399ea645e36 with parent fca4b15, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (eba8c28d9084567cf02500425ff31399ea645e36): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to small relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Small improvement in instruction counts (up to -0.8% on full builds of helloworld)
• Small regression in instruction counts (up to 0.2% on full builds of wf-projection-stress-65510)

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

[cjgillot]

The rustdoc regression is very small, ~0.25%.
r? @cjgillot
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 046a682 has been approved by cjgillot

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 046a682 with merge 01948bfac8efac868bc89616636c89cdb19b22b8...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[Aaron1011]

@bors retry

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job dist-aarch64-apple failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

hw.tbfrequency: 1000000000
hw.use_kernelmanagerd: 1
+ ./x.py dist --stage 2
    Finished dev [unoptimized] target(s) in 0.32s
thread 'main' panicked at 'fs::read_dir(builder.src.join(&relative_path).join("redirects")) failed with No such file or directory (os error 2)', src/bootstrap/doc.rs:235:21
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:00

[petrochenkov]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 046a682 with merge 9796e714de7693689a2fd33499d63b0e91b31b36...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[petrochenkov]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 046a682 with merge 31a0a0748b649525d3dda6324f2c8d2cb25cacd7...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[ehuss]

@bors retry

network error

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 046a682 with merge e91ad5f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing e91ad5f to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e91ad5f): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to moderate relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Moderate improvement in instruction counts (up to -1.3% on incr-unchanged builds of deeply-nested-async)
• Small regression in instruction counts (up to 0.8% on incr-unchanged builds of externs)

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

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression