perf: delay checking of #[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs] in autoref lint

[Urgau]

Try to address the regression seen in #123239 (comment) by delaying the checking of #[rustc_no_implicit_autorefs] on method call.

[rustbot]

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[Urgau]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3664fd9 with merge c219daa...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c219daa (c219daa25e45c540fa286e1635485c7da0b41401)

[nnethercote]

Code changes look fine. r=me with the nits fixed, if it helps perf.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c219daa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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 may lead 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-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-3.4%, -0.2%]	5
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, 3.0%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.2%, secondary 1.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.8%, 1.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-2.1%, -0.4%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-2.1%, 1.7%]	6

Cycles

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary 2.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.4%, 2.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-2.8%, -0.4%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-2.8%, 2.8%]	13

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 765.314s -> 765.615s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 365.17 MiB -> 365.20 MiB (0.01%)

[nnethercote]

Looks like the perf regression has been reversed! :)

@bors delegate=Urgau

[bors]

✌️ @Urgau, you can now approve this pull request!

If @nnethercote told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@nnethercote

[Urgau]

@bors r=@nnethercote

[bors]

📌 Commit c519510 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c519510 with merge 4824c2b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing 4824c2b to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 7c96085 (parent) -> 4824c2b (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 4824c2bb7445cb2478aab0190c268c939d77a0f6 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-apple: 12396.4s -> 8006.7s (-35.4%)
2. x86_64-apple-1: 7451.5s -> 9777.2s (31.2%)
3. x86_64-apple-2: 5171.2s -> 4363.8s (-15.6%)
4. dist-armv7-linux: 5312.2s -> 6110.5s (15.0%)
5. dist-aarch64-linux: 6175.5s -> 5528.4s (-10.5%)
6. dist-arm-linux: 4593.3s -> 5060.2s (10.2%)
7. x86_64-gnu: 7095.0s -> 6462.2s (-8.9%)
8. dist-riscv64-linux: 5208.8s -> 5553.7s (6.6%)
9. dist-i686-msvc: 7382.3s -> 6923.1s (-6.2%)
10. dist-x86_64-msvc: 6497.9s -> 6107.0s (-6.0%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4824c2b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, -0.2%]	13
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-3.4%, -0.2%]	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.7%, secondary -0.2%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[0.5%, 4.2%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-8.4%, -0.4%]	49
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-8.4%, 4.2%]	54

Cycles

Results (primary -0.9%, secondary 3.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-3.1%, -0.4%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-3.1%, 0.7%]	15

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 769.081s -> 767.886s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 365.55 MiB -> 365.54 MiB (-0.00%)