Remove unneeded handling for ExternalLocation::Unknown in rustdoc render context

[GuillaumeGomez]

Should fix perf regression introduced in #113623.

r? @lqd

[GuillaumeGomez]

Just to be sure:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1fa8b9a with merge 54769c60b24a1aaffb0558f9f11bbc6146d161c4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 54769c60b24a1aaffb0558f9f11bbc6146d161c4 (54769c60b24a1aaffb0558f9f11bbc6146d161c4)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (54769c60b24a1aaffb0558f9f11bbc6146d161c4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.6%	[0.7%, 4.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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: 659.454s -> 657.437s (-0.31%)

[lqd]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 1fa8b9a has been approved by lqd

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 1fa8b9a with merge 4c8bb79...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lqd
Pushing 4c8bb79 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4c8bb79): 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[2.5%, 3.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 658.368s -> 659.302s (0.14%)

[lqd]

(ctfe-stress-5 was being noisy at the time)

[pnkfelix]

I'm taking @lqd's note as a signal that the flagged regressions to ctfe-stress-5 should be treated as noise.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged