Remove more BuiltinLintDiag variants - part 4

[GuillaumeGomez]

Part of #153099.

I wonder if there will be any impact on perf by doing this code all the time. Gonna check.

r? @JonathanBrouwer

[rustbot]

JonathanBrouwer is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[JonathanBrouwer]

r=me if perf doesn't regress

View changes since this review

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 15fe654 (15fe654f48f70513a93a7c83747adc01baf1d6af, parent: 8a703520e80d87d4423c01f9d4fbc9e5f6533a02)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (15fe654): 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)	2.0%	[0.5%, 3.3%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.4%, 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)	4.5%	[1.3%, 6.8%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.8%	[-5.1%, -4.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary 5.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.1%	[2.5%, 7.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 482.838s -> 482.192s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 394.91 MiB -> 394.90 MiB (-0.00%)

[GuillaumeGomez]

Seems like we're forced to handle the computation only on need, so changed DecorateDiagCompat::Dynamic to make it provide a Session when needed. Let's see if perf is back to normal!

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 710c3a7 (710c3a78cc2b99a56947b72d4ff0e45a5e37ad7b, parent: 212ef7770dfad656782207fda799bdae28fc5b7b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (710c3a7): 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)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.4%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -1.8%)

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)	3.0%	[2.6%, 3.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.0%	[-6.9%, -2.5%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 5.3%)

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)	5.3%	[2.2%, 9.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 484.064s -> 483.536s (-0.11%)
Artifact size: 396.84 MiB -> 394.94 MiB (-0.48%)

[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.