add #[rustc_pass_by_value] to more types

[lcnr]

the only interesting changes here should be to TransitiveRelation, but I believe to be highly unlikely that we will ever use a non Copy type with this type.

[rust-highfive]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy.

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[rust-highfive]

r? @davidtwco

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

[davidtwco]

r=me if you don't want to do a perf run here (I assume that perf is the motivation)

[lcnr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

perf wasn't really the intention, it was mostly to remove a bunch of & and *, but perf can be impacted here

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit b8135fd with merge d861784f75d3058217714691c183160e5de9b759...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d861784f75d3058217714691c183160e5de9b759 (d861784f75d3058217714691c183160e5de9b759)

[rust-timer]

Queued d861784f75d3058217714691c183160e5de9b759 with parent 163c207, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d861784f75d3058217714691c183160e5de9b759): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. 38 results were found to be statistically significant but too small to be relevant.

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

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 led to changes in compiler perf.

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

[lcnr]

a bunch of small improvements

@bors r=davidtwco rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit b8135fd has been approved by davidtwco

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b8135fd with merge f29bd67b2454a59fed4825e34bba326a20fc5e8c...

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b8135fd with merge 52164d07d2c5c5eec6c1b20788c11ec847465523...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[lcnr]

is that one spurious? Can't seem to find the runner which was causing the failure

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-tools failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

.......... (60/61)
.          (61/61)


/checkout/src/test/rustdoc-gui/mobile.goml mobile... FAILED
[ERROR] (line 27) Error: Evaluation failed: assert didn't fail: for command `compare-elements-position-near-false: ("#preferred-light-theme .setting-name", "#preferred-light-theme .choice", {"y": 16})`
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:21

[nikic]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b8135fd with merge 85ce7fd...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing 85ce7fd to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (85ce7fd): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. 38 results were found to be statistically significant but too small to be relevant.

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

@rustbot label: -perf-regression