revert parts of #89709 (Apply clippy suggestions for rustc and core) to see if it mitigates the perf hit

[matthiaskrgr]

These looked a bit suspicious to me, requesting a perf run to see if it perhaps fixes the per regression.

cc #89709

[rust-highfive]

r? @oli-obk

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

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9e8aa21 with merge 61da02c924ed7d88f2a2de46122e130218a83430...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 61da02c924ed7d88f2a2de46122e130218a83430 (61da02c924ed7d88f2a2de46122e130218a83430)

[rust-timer]

Queued 61da02c924ed7d88f2a2de46122e130218a83430 with parent eeb16a2, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (61da02c924ed7d88f2a2de46122e130218a83430): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes.

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