Rollup of 7 pull requests

[matthiaskrgr]

Successful merges:

• Make sure to use Receiver trait when extracting object method candidate #135179 (Make sure to use Receiver trait when extracting object method candidate)
• Add opt_alias_variances and use it in outlives code #136554 (Add opt_alias_variances and use it in outlives code)
• [AIX] Update tests/ui/wait-forked-but-failed-child.rs to accomodate exiting and idle processes. #136556 ([AIX] Update tests/ui/wait-forked-but-failed-child.rs to accomodate exiting and idle processes.)
• Enable "jump to def" feature on rustc docs #136589 (Enable "jump to def" feature on rustc docs)
• sys: net: Add UEFI stubs #136615 (sys: net: Add UEFI stubs)
• Remove outdated base_port calculation in std net test #136635 (Remove outdated base_port calculation in std net test)
• Move two windows process tests to tests/ui #136682 (Move two windows process tests to tests/ui)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=3

[bors]

📌 Commit 0a33d7c has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0a33d7c with merge 0148a2b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing 0148a2b to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#135179	Make sure to use Receiver trait when extracting object me…	4aa5db56d187fe2611f5640387c3a9a3a17d9edc (link)
#136554	Add opt_alias_variances and use it in outlives code	31bfd26d2e11af8550b005d42a636def165c647c (link)
#136556	[AIX] Update tests/ui/wait-forked-but-failed-child.rs to ac…	183d5598916663220c8a5212ff9e69efdccb8fdb (link)
#136589	Enable "jump to def" feature on rustc docs	82ae905ca47c8ba9f8db2ded40e29d26c7c59d79 (link)
#136615	sys: net: Add UEFI stubs	e7e031e4e32f26c2680b3734ee6ddd4e7df80cb0 (link)
#136635	Remove outdated base_port calculation in std net test	831613b55580a113c673bb187389d759e6a21e65 (link)
#136682	Move two windows process tests to tests/ui	acf8dea44ba0f5bfa403074f1e73acfeaf3ae056 (link)

previous master: e0607238c9

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 (0148a2b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.2%, secondary -2.4%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 3.1%, secondary 3.3%)

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)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 778.909s -> 778.886s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 329.06 MiB -> 329.10 MiB (0.01%)

[lqd]

We’ll know on future merges but this looks like the periodic noise bump back after a calm period on the less stable benchmarks.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Yeah, doesn't look like a real change on either regression.