[WIP] Move more early buffered lints to dyn lint diagnostics

[fmease]

Follow-up to #145747.

TODO: Migrate more variants. Presently, it's unclear if it's possible to migrate all variants to dyn lint diagnostics without regressing performance because for some early lints decorate_builtin_lint performs a bit more work (past PR #124417 has shown that eagerly decorating early lints is incredibly heavy and we had to revert back to lazily decorating in #125410). Let's see how this fares once I tackle the more 'risky' variants).

cc @joshtriplett (you can immediately unsubscribe again, I just want to prevent duplicate efforts).

[joshtriplett]

Seems worth a try.

You might consider finishing the set you currently have and doing a perf run.

[joshtriplett]

@fmease Regarding the potential performance issues, reading the previous PRs I don't think this is likely to hit the same issues. It could potentially regress for other reasons, but this change won't make the decorating any less lazy.

[fmease]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[fmease]

@bors try cancel

[rust-bors]

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

• https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/17413158733

[fmease]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9d79411 (9d794119e470cc679493ce04193550fe54c76727, parent: a2c8b0b92c14b02f0b3f96a0d5296f1090dc286b)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9d79411): 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%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	14
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.7%, -0.1%]	18
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.1%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary -0.2%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.2%, 2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.1%, -2.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.2%, secondary 3.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 465.026s -> 464.899s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 388.33 MiB -> 388.40 MiB (0.02%)