[EXPERIMENT] Double-check that the load-store approach in 94412 is ok

[scottmcm]

Mark suggests in #94412 (comment) that that change wasn't actually a regression, but let's try the other symmetric impl just in case.

r? @ghost

[scottmcm]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 14b8e67 with merge 0f5f207ca3e616f6d787c78bbc3994b8677f75c4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0f5f207ca3e616f6d787c78bbc3994b8677f75c4 (0f5f207ca3e616f6d787c78bbc3994b8677f75c4)

[rust-timer]

Queued 0f5f207ca3e616f6d787c78bbc3994b8677f75c4 with parent f0c4da4, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0f5f207ca3e616f6d787c78bbc3994b8677f75c4): comparison url.

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

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

[scottmcm]

As expected, not meaningful.