rustdoc: remove clean::TraitWithExtraInfo

[notriddle]

Instead, it gathers the extra info later, when it's actually requested.

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @GuillaumeGomez (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

[notriddle]

This should probably get a perf build...

[GuillaumeGomez]

It's super cool! It's been a while we didn't clean up the clean module. Let's run a perf check.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a63a03d with merge 3a575109c7eeb4467ba847d3c9b28007d3de599f...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3a575109c7eeb4467ba847d3c9b28007d3de599f (3a575109c7eeb4467ba847d3c9b28007d3de599f)

[rust-timer]

Queued 3a575109c7eeb4467ba847d3c9b28007d3de599f with parent 57ee5cf, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3a575109c7eeb4467ba847d3c9b28007d3de599f): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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-review -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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.3%, 2.1%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.0%	[0.3%, 2.1%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.6%	[3.1%, 7.9%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Footnotes

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

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²