lib: refactor to avoid unsafe array iteration

[aduh95]

No description provided.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/35695/

[Trott]

LGTM. Does this need a benchmark?

[aduh95]

Benchmark CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/910/

EDIT: Didn't show any significant improvement or regression.

                                                      confidence improvement accuracy (*)    (**)   (***)
 process/bench-env.js operation='delete' n=1000000                   -0.29 %       ±5.56%  ±7.40%  ±9.63%
 process/bench-env.js operation='enumerate' n=1000000                -1.52 %       ±1.56%  ±2.07%  ±2.70%
 process/bench-env.js operation='get' n=1000000                      -1.75 %       ±3.90%  ±5.19%  ±6.76%
 process/bench-env.js operation='query' n=1000000                     1.02 %       ±2.91%  ±3.91%  ±5.15%
 process/bench-env.js operation='set' n=1000000                      -3.65 %       ±5.15%  ±6.86%  ±8.96%
 process/bench-hrtime.js type='bigint' n=1000000                      0.25 %       ±3.85%  ±5.12%  ±6.67%
 process/bench-hrtime.js type='diff' n=1000000                        2.55 %       ±3.67%  ±4.90%  ±6.41%
 process/bench-hrtime.js type='raw' n=1000000                        -2.05 %       ±3.28%  ±4.37%  ±5.72%
 process/memoryUsage.js n=100000                                     -0.10 %       ±1.79%  ±2.38%  ±3.11%
 process/next-tick-breadth-args.js n=10000000                        -0.06 %       ±3.86%  ±5.14%  ±6.69%
 process/next-tick-breadth.js n=10000000                             -2.16 %       ±3.73%  ±4.96%  ±6.46%
 process/next-tick-depth-args.js n=7000000                           -0.34 %       ±2.68%  ±3.58%  ±4.69%
 process/next-tick-depth.js n=7000000                                 0.91 %       ±2.03%  ±2.70%  ±3.53%
 process/next-tick-exec-args.js n=4000000                            -5.10 %      ±14.18% ±18.88% ±24.58%
 process/next-tick-exec.js n=4000000                                 -5.23 %       ±9.37% ±12.50% ±16.34%
 process/queue-microtask-breadth.js n=400000                          6.51 %       ±7.38%  ±9.82% ±12.80%
 process/queue-microtask-depth.js n=1200000                          -0.37 %       ±1.84%  ±2.44%  ±3.18%
 process/resourceUsage.js n=100000                                   -0.60 %       ±3.01%  ±4.00%  ±5.21%

Be aware that when doing many comparisons the risk of a false-positive
result increases. In this case, there are 18 comparisons, you can thus
expect the following amount of false-positive results:
  0.90 false positives, when considering a   5% risk acceptance (*, **, ***),
  0.18 false positives, when considering a   1% risk acceptance (**, ***),
  0.02 false positives, when considering a 0.1% risk acceptance (***)

[RaisinTen]

Since buildAllowedFlags is only used here:

node/lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js

Lines 252 to 256 in efa6e1d

	get() {
	const flags = perThreadSetup.buildAllowedFlags();
	process.allowedNodeEnvironmentFlags = flags;
	return process.allowedNodeEnvironmentFlags;
	},

and grep allowedNodeEnvironmentFlags benchmark/process/* gives nothing, I think the benchmark didn't run the new code.

[aduh95]

Benchmark CI (misc/startup): https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/911/

[RaisinTen]

Landed in 2e1e02a