Not lint pub structs without pub constructors intentionally

[mu001999]

Fixes #128053

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
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

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit adf0dff has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build dc46839

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (dc46839): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[2.0%, 12.0%]	10
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 7.2%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	7.2%	[7.2%, 7.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 5.4%)

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.4%	[2.1%, 14.8%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 769.793s -> 769.46s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 331.78 MiB -> 331.84 MiB (0.02%)

[Kobzol]

This PR seems to have introduced a non-trivial regression for structs with a lot of fields. Do you think that there is something that can be done here to win back the perf. loss?

[mu001999]

@Kobzol oh yes, I think I can open a new PR