Partially revert "Use drop_guard in some places in {core,alloc,std}"

[GrigorenkoPV]

This partially reverts #161702, because there was a perf regression.

This only reverts the places where there was an #[inline] on fn drop before. (See #161702 (review) for context.)

• An alternative approach to combat the perf regression: Mark <mem::DropGuard as Drop>::drop as #[inline] #162064
• Tracking issue: Tracking Issue for core::mem::DropGuard #144426

This probably deserves a perf run to see if the regression is fixed

[rustbot]

r? @JohnTitor

rustbot has assigned @JohnTitor.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: libs
• libs expanded to 12 candidates
• Random selection from JohnTitor, Mark-Simulacrum, clarfonthey, joboet, nia-e

[lqd]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[clarfonthey]

r? clarfonthey since I reviewed the other change

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a10c6b9 (a10c6b9b9aa59048793025cf9178b5e3e9b71a24)
Base parent: 45f215f (45f215f136e00d8a74c69afde2f71be3f16837cf)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a10c6b9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.9%	[0.3%, 1.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-1.6%, -0.2%]	25
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-1.8%, -0.2%]	23
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-1.6%, 1.5%]	27

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.5%, secondary 1.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.1%	[2.8%, 3.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.2%	[2.1%, 5.2%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-7.6%	[-7.6%, -7.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-7.6%, 3.4%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary -5.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.6%	[-11.5%, -2.4%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -1.1%, secondary -1.6%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-12.8%, -0.2%]	56
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-12.8%, -0.5%]	22
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-12.8%, 2.0%]	57

Bootstrap: 475.395s -> 475.011s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 401.38 MiB -> 402.63 MiB (0.31%)