Rollup of 3 pull requests

[jhpratt]

Successful merges:

• Stabilize WebAssembly multivalue, reference-types, and tail-call target features #131080 (Stabilize WebAssembly multivalue, reference-types, and tail-call target features)
• add regression test for #85763 #132871 (add regression test for rustdoc doesn't include all text that cross attribute type boundaries in the summary #85763)
• triagebot: Assign rustdoc tests to T-rustdoc. #132878 (triagebot: Assign rustdoc tests to T-rustdoc.)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[jhpratt]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=3

[bors]

📌 Commit 8253484 has been approved by jhpratt

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8253484 with merge fbcdd72...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jhpratt
Pushing fbcdd72 to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#131080	Stabilize WebAssembly multivalue, reference-types, and …	0060a876aa4833cff31c212e19dcebf4f4f9c122 (link)
#132871	add regression test for #85763	8ffc0e7eae9d140c9e55c055e3320b081e1c309e (link)
#132878	triagebot: Assign rustdoc tests to T-rustdoc.	5e292456561da466efad7d6534146b825a24f965 (link)

previous master: 42b2496320

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fbcdd72): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-5.1%, -0.5%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%, secondary -4.7%)

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)	3.6%	[2.5%, 4.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.7%	[-4.7%, -4.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[-3.3%, 4.7%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 2.5%, secondary 1.9%)

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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 786.761s -> 785.591s (-0.15%)
Artifact size: 335.30 MiB -> 335.31 MiB (0.01%)

[lqd]

Nothing substantial changed in this PR, so this should be noise that should calm down in the next merge. We'll see.

The deep-vector improvement is also a blip from the previous merge noise regression.