rustdoc: remove redundant clone in synthesize_auto_trait_impls

[lolbinarycat]

No description provided.

[lolbinarycat]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[fmease]

@bors try cancel

[rust-bors]

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

• https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/18355324054

[lolbinarycat]

Whoops.

I'm just gonna hack this with mem::take to get an idea of if this could save enough time to be worth doing properly.

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

💥 Test timed out after 21600s

[lolbinarycat]

Well I've never seen that happen before.

[lolbinarycat]

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

uhh hoping it's just spurious failure?

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 517ceea (517ceea73228d74d525d2173560e2024a2322bc3, parent: 4b57d8154a6a74d2514cd3a674c1f29a588f224a)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (517ceea): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -4.3%)

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)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -2.2%, secondary -2.2%)

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)	1.8%	[1.7%, 1.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.4%, -2.1%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 473.051s -> 471.373s (-0.35%)
Artifact size: 388.38 MiB -> 388.36 MiB (-0.00%)

[lolbinarycat]

Ok, so this is not worth doing, got it. Unsure if the redundant allocation is getting optimized away, or if removing it is causing some slightly worse caching, but in any case, this isn't worth it.

[lolbinarycat]

Well I've never seen that happen before.