[DO NOT MERGE] pref test for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95250

[matthiaskrgr]

No description provided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @cjgillot

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

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e0b33e2 with merge 7a1507dcff353cc82016ad274de4015f5a45bf88...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7a1507dcff353cc82016ad274de4015f5a45bf88 (7a1507dcff353cc82016ad274de4015f5a45bf88)

[rust-timer]

Queued 7a1507dcff353cc82016ad274de4015f5a45bf88 with parent 6970f88, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7a1507dcff353cc82016ad274de4015f5a45bf88): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 20 relevant improvements 🎉 to instruction counts.

• Arithmetic mean of relevant regressions: 1.3%
• Arithmetic mean of relevant improvements: -2.9%
• Arithmetic mean of all relevant changes: -2.5%
• Largest improvement in instruction counts: -10.0% on full builds of cargo-0.60.0 doc

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

[oli-obk]

Maybe we should just merge this PR (reverting the original)

The correct solution to the rustdoc problem is to remove the rustdoc specific hack and change how rustdoc queries information. Since this is a perf problem AND a hack, reverting and then removing the original hack, too, seems like the best way forward to me

cc @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

I'm fine with it but I'll need help from someone who knows how to do it. Do you have an idea on how to do it? (Also, I'd really prefer to do it before merging this one so the issue doesn't reappear in the meantime if possible)

[oli-obk]

Ok, so I guess we mark the perf regression as triaged and work on a fix independently of this change

[GuillaumeGomez]

Sounds good to me!