Convert some iter macros to normal functions

[scottmcm]

With all the MIR optimization changes that have happened since these were written, let's see if they still actually matter.

*perf comes back*

Well, it looks like it's not longer relevant for instruction, cycle, nor wall-time perf. Looks like a bunch of things are maybe 10kb bigger in debug, but one is also 50k smaller in debug.

So I think they should switch to being normal functions as the "greatly improves performance" justification for them being macros seems to no longer be true -- probably thanks to us always building core with -Z inline-mir so the difference is negligible.

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit cd47a0e with merge 2c1caf5...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2c1caf5 (2c1caf528730eb705b9bd1d8dba09e7c78041701)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2c1caf5 (2c1caf528730eb705b9bd1d8dba09e7c78041701)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2c1caf5): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - 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 benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

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)	0.1%	[0.1%, 0.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.8%	[-2.8%, -2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-2.8%, 0.1%]	2

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	60
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.1%, 0.3%]	61

Bootstrap: 670.073s -> 670.802s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 316.00 MiB -> 316.01 MiB (0.00%)

[scottmcm]

r? libs

[joboet]

Fantastic! These macros add so much confusion (at least for me), so it's great that we can remove them.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit cd47a0e has been approved by joboet

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit cd47a0e with merge 5ff8fbb...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: joboet
Pushing 5ff8fbb to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5ff8fbb): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	3.6%	[0.1%, 7.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-4.6%, -2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-4.6%, 7.1%]	4

Cycles

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

Binary size

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)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	60
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.1%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.1%, 0.3%]	61

Bootstrap: 670.073s -> 670.891s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 316.00 MiB -> 315.98 MiB (-0.01%)