rustdoc: Remove clean::TraitWithExtraInfo and queryify is_notable_trait

[camelid]

cc @notriddle @GuillaumeGomez

[rust-highfive]

r? @notriddle

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

[camelid]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9a6b171181b276e3f3a69da84cb77095c2654b93 with merge 55c0d3696fbf1bc6cdb82259cc12443792b1aa8e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 55c0d3696fbf1bc6cdb82259cc12443792b1aa8e (55c0d3696fbf1bc6cdb82259cc12443792b1aa8e)

[rust-timer]

Queued 55c0d3696fbf1bc6cdb82259cc12443792b1aa8e with parent 470e518, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (55c0d3696fbf1bc6cdb82259cc12443792b1aa8e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[2.8%, 5.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[camelid]

This reduces the regressions for stm32f4 by a factor of 10 and eliminates the regressions for the other crates.

[GuillaumeGomez]

It's super cool, thanks! (and welcome back!)

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit 4bf789f has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 4bf789f with merge b30c886...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing b30c886 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b30c886): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

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
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.4%	[-1.7%, -1.2%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[2.7%, 3.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-4.3%, -2.7%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²

[nnethercote]

The keccak improvements are probably noise. Otherwise this looks to be perf-neutral or perhaps a very slight improvement.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged