resolve: Introduce separate (Local,Extern)ModuleData structures for local and external modules respectively

[petrochenkov]

Besides the CommonModuleData core they need to keep quite different data.

This is a follow up to #155242.
The remaining piece is dismantling CommonModuleData::lazy_resolutions, but it would be better done separately.

[rustbot]

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
• compiler expanded to 73 candidates
• Random selection from 17 candidates

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue
Just in case.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: aa5ec85 (aa5ec8516b3b1b6b87e57a50c0ba572d6727f2e7, parent: 0490dd938541ad996c5ad1ec6e274012afe3e1d4)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (aa5ec85): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	24
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.2%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[-0.3%, 0.3%]	15

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.9%, secondary 0.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.5%	[1.5%, 5.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.7%	[5.6%, 5.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-2.3%, -0.6%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[-1.3%, 5.4%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 497.416s -> 499.549s (0.43%)
Artifact size: 397.18 MiB -> 397.15 MiB (-0.01%)

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[petrochenkov]

The parent and kind commits are probably responsible for the regressions.
Or introduction of enum Module itself, with all access to inner data going through matching on it.