rustdoc: link sibling where possible, even when not One True Path

[notriddle]

This is, first of all, a size hack aimed at the core::arch modules that share items (x86-64/x86, aarch64/x86). They inline a lot of items from shared modules, and if we can avoid writing ../arm/WHATEVER all over the aarch64 module, we can shave a few bytes off every link.

Also, clicking a link in the 64 bit module and landing in the 32 bit module makes no sense.

[rustbot]

r? @GuillaumeGomez

rustbot has assigned @GuillaumeGomez.
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

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #124008) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Thanks! r=me once merge conflicts have been resolved.

[notriddle]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit aeeb197 with merge bfb0a95...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bfb0a95 (bfb0a95051fee4201e00ff20dec4f7609fdbf6ee)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bfb0a95): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	2.6%	[0.3%, 7.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[2.2%, 4.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[0.3%, 7.7%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	171.2%	[15.6%, 319.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	54.4%	[5.5%, 103.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	171.2%	[15.6%, 319.1%]	3

Cycles

Results

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)	10.2%	[3.3%, 17.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[3.5%, 4.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	10.2%	[3.3%, 17.2%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 676.731s -> 676.763s (0.00%)
Artifact size: 316.11 MiB -> 315.33 MiB (-0.25%)

[GuillaumeGomez]

The impact on libc is quite huge (especially on memory).

[notriddle]

Yeah, that's way more than acceptable. It also doesn't seem like libc's output has changed at all.

Since that probably means that its items are being inlined into exactly one place and this patch isn't doing anything. Maybe it would fix the regression if rustdoc skipped populating the map? 2868cea

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 2868cea with merge 620d812...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 620d812 (620d81217e6b871206e01698678714a7d789b48f)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 620d812 (620d81217e6b871206e01698678714a7d789b48f)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (620d812): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	2.6%	[0.3%, 7.7%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[0.3%, 7.7%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	128.8%	[0.9%, 318.4%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	101.5%	[101.5%, 101.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	128.8%	[0.9%, 318.4%]	4

Cycles

Results

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)	10.6%	[3.5%, 17.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[4.8%, 4.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	10.6%	[3.5%, 17.7%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 672.221s -> 672.962s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 315.28 MiB -> 315.31 MiB (0.01%)

[notriddle]

That didn't help.

Might need to go back to the drawing board here...