Fix perf of check_crate_level refactor

[JonathanBrouwer]

Fixes the perf of #150930
The problem is that allowed_targets allocates a Vec

(also moves a comment around to a move useful place)

r? @jdonszelmann

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[jdonszelmann]

Let's wait for the perf run

[jdonszelmann]

r=me if faster

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b702a34 (b702a34877a8f68b8f25d96b8593bc3b3e64c051, parent: 137716908d561bfcf0341701ec13a28326926c82)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b702a34): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.2%]	16
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.5%, 1.5%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-2.5%, 1.5%]	4

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 473.493s -> 471.336s (-0.46%)
Artifact size: 391.40 MiB -> 391.42 MiB (0.00%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

@bors r=jdonszelmann

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 573c309 has been approved by jdonszelmann

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: jdonszelmann
Pushing fcac501 to main...

[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 2850ca8 (parent) -> fcac501 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard fcac501a73cdde54de46a0683567f1a890730555 --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-aarch64-msvc: 6722.8s -> 5840.1s (-13.1%)
2. dist-x86_64-apple: 8267.6s -> 7358.3s (-11.0%)
3. pr-check-1: 1819.6s -> 1637.2s (-10.0%)
4. dist-ohos-armv7: 4171.6s -> 3801.6s (-8.9%)
5. aarch64-gnu: 7225.6s -> 7733.3s (+7.0%)
6. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 4136.9s -> 4420.3s (+6.9%)
7. i686-msvc-2: 7615.0s -> 8121.1s (+6.6%)
8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 5720.7s -> 5347.8s (-6.5%)
9. dist-apple-various: 4742.5s -> 4443.5s (-6.3%)
10. dist-ohos-aarch64: 4042.1s -> 4278.4s (+5.8%)

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 (fcac501): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.1%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.3%, 2.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-6.3%, -2.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-2.5%, 1.9%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 5.0%)

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)	5.0%	[4.8%, 5.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.424s -> 474.33s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 383.16 MiB -> 383.14 MiB (-0.01%)