Urgau

I think this check is miss-placed, I think it should be with the others codegen attributes handling in the [`codegen_fn_attrs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f6648f252a05a0a46c865d7ec836b46290613bf9/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/codegen_attrs.rs#L53C4-L53C20) function in [`compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/codegen_attrs.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f6648f252a05a0a46c865d7ec836b46290613bf9/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/codegen_attrs.rs#L53C4-L53C20). You can look at the [`check_link_name_xor_ordinal`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f6648f252a05a0a46c865d7ec836b46290613bf9/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/codegen_attrs.rs#L766-L780) function...

Reminder, don't forget to use [the `rustbot` review commands](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131558#issuecomment-2407749951).

I have a local branch where I experimented with hiding/grouping those `--check-cfg` args, and two things came up: - Should they be also hidden in extra verbose, aka `-vv` ?...

> btw there is a purist aspect of me that is hesitant about hiding parts of the command line. (fwi, my local branch actually uses an argfile for all `--check-cfg`,...

While I like this change, the concerns expressed by others makes me realize that this change is probably to big to just be approved without further discussion. The major change...

I'm personally fine with the PR as is, the diff looks good to me. @Kobzol @petrochenkov How do feel about the new diff?

@nnethercote could you resolve the conflicts, I will take a last look after that. @rustbot author

@bors r+ rollup

rustc dev here :wave: The warning is legitimate, `powerpc64le` is not a expected `target_arch` name, the correct one as suggested by the diagnostic is `powerpc64`; the same `target_name = "powerpc64"`...