Revert #95993 fix

[b-ncMN]

This reverts the temporary fix implemented by #95993 since a permanent fix has been implemented by rust-lang/cargo#10594

Fixes #98728

[rust-highfive]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

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

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit 81b525e has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[jyn514]

@InfRandomness can you confirm that you've tested x test --doc --stage 0 library/std locally and it works ok?

[b-ncMN]

x test --doc --stage 0 library/std

running 1210 tests
i....................................................................................... 88/1210
........................................................................................ 176/1210
........................................................................................ 264/1210
........................................................................................ 352/1210
...................................i.i.................................................. 440/1210
..............................i....i.................................................... 528/1210
............i...........ii.............................................................. 616/1210
........................................................................................ 704/1210
........................................................................................ 792/1210
........................................................................................ 880/1210
...........................................................................ii.i......... 968/1210
........................................................................................ 1056/1210
.....................................................................iiiiii............. 1144/1210
..................................i...............................
test result: ok. 1192 passed; 0 failed; 18 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 24.57s

	finished in 25.970 seconds
warning: you have not made a `config.toml`
help: consider running `./x.py setup` or copying `config.toml.example` by running `cp config.toml.example config.toml`
note: this message was printed twice to make it more likely to be seen
Build completed successfully in 0:01:28

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 81b525e with merge a5c6a48...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing a5c6a48 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a5c6a48): comparison url.

Instruction count

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	1.2%	1.4%	2
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	2.9%	3.3%	6
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-0.6%	-0.9%	11
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-1.4%	-2.3%	12
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-0.3%	1.4%	13

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-2.7%	-3.1%	2
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-1.9%	-2.0%	2
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-2.7%	-3.1%	2

Cycles

Results

• Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	-3.2%	-4.5%	9
All 😿🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[b-ncMN]

I'm not sure why this would cause a regression, should we be worried about it ?

[jyn514]

Nah, perf has been noisy lately, I think it's fine.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I think these particular benchmarks are indeed a little noisier over the last week or so, so dropping regression label.