Revert "Rollup merge of #80458 - RalfJung:promotion-refactor, r=oli-obk"

[rylev]

Reverts #80458 to test for possible performance regressions.

In the latest perf triage, the rollup that the reverted PR was a part of featured a performance regression. We are testing whether the reverted PR was indeed (at least partially) responsible.

This reverts commit 46111c1, reversing
changes made to 1975142.

cc @RalfJung @oli-obk

[rust-highfive]

r? @matthewjasper

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

[rylev]

r? @ghost

[rylev]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 39bbc1e with merge aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67...

[oli-obk]

I am fairly certain it can't be due to this PR, since the regression is solely in LLVM optimizations, but let's wait for perf, maybe we promote fewer things now and that makes LLVM take longer (there was a change in that PR that could be breaking, but we have no examples that could even trigger that code)?

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67 (aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67)

[rust-timer]

Queued aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67 with parent 68ec332, future comparison URL.

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

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67 (aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking try commit (aaff735c88fc1381b649ee416dd34a8338c49f67): comparison url.

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. Please note that if the perf results are neutral, you should likely undo the rollup=never given below by specifying rollup- to bors.

Importantly, though, if the results of this run are non-neutral do not roll this PR up -- it will mask other regressions or improvements in the roll up.

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

[rylev]

@oli-obk is correct. It’s not this PR. The search continues.