Pass Ident by reference in ast Visitor

[maxcabrajac]

MutVisitor's version of visit_ident passes around &Ident, but Visitor copies Ident. This PR changes that

r? @petrochenkov

related to #128974 & #127615

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @petrochenkov (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 64a3451 with merge a4d54cd...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a4d54cd (a4d54cd6480a93ff44fbe5a6d212dcfb0c0a3647)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a4d54cd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no 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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.7%, secondary -3.5%)

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)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1

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: 780.805s -> 780.224s (-0.07%)
Artifact size: 333.57 MiB -> 333.58 MiB (0.00%)

[maxcabrajac]

So it's ok perfwise? Looking at the results page, the only time regression is on helloworld and there are medium memory saves in other 2 cases. For some reason wall times seem to be all over the place [-46.47%, +6.38%]. I don't know if that's common or not.

[petrochenkov]

Yeah, it's noise.
@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 64a3451 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.