rustdoc: Collect traits in scope for foreign inherent impls

[petrochenkov]

Inherent impls can be inlined for variety of reasons (impls of reexported types, impls available through Deref, impls inlined for unclear reasons like in #88679 (comment)).
If an impl is inlined, then doc links in its comments are resolved and we may need the set of traits that are in scope at that impl's definition point.
So in this PR we simply collect traits in scope for all inherent impls from other crates if their Self type is public, which is very similar for the strategy for trait impls previously used in #88679.

Fixes #93476
Fixes #88679 (comment)
Fixes #88679 (comment)

[rust-highfive]

r? @jackh726

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

[petrochenkov]

r? @camelid
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit dfbf5b3a81fdacb90d5a3dfd1e9c4a8de896b727 with merge d3dcd7b981fb43fad7a16c0dbc2f20898a0579c5...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d3dcd7b981fb43fad7a16c0dbc2f20898a0579c5 (d3dcd7b981fb43fad7a16c0dbc2f20898a0579c5)

[rust-timer]

Queued d3dcd7b981fb43fad7a16c0dbc2f20898a0579c5 with parent 25862ff, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d3dcd7b981fb43fad7a16c0dbc2f20898a0579c5): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 39 relevant regressions 😿 to instruction counts.

• Average relevant regression: 1.1%
• Largest regression in instruction counts: 1.7% on full builds of projection-caching 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.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

[camelid]

The rustdoc side looks good to me, but I'd like someone else to review the metadata code. @michaelwoerister could you look at that part?

[michaelwoerister]

Looks good to me! To clarify, this PR does not make the compiler encode anything new in crate metadata, right? It just adds a method for retrieving something that is already there?

[petrochenkov]

@michaelwoerister

To clarify, this PR does not make the compiler encode anything new in crate metadata, right? It just adds a method for retrieving something that is already there?

Yes, the method just decodes the whole table of inherent impls which is already there.

[michaelwoerister]

OK, r=me then with the doc comments added.

[petrochenkov]

@bors r=camelid,michaelwoerister

[bors]

📌 Commit afc0030 has been approved by camelid,michaelwoerister

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit afc0030 with merge f9c3bb5dfc36d618e3be59ade04586b9c86c2112...

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[petrochenkov]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit afc0030 with merge 88fb06a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: camelid,michaelwoerister
Pushing 88fb06a to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (88fb06a): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run shows 41 relevant regressions 😿 to instruction counts.

• Average relevant regression: 1.1%
• Largest regression in instruction counts: 1.7% on full builds of projection-caching doc

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[camelid]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

This was necessary to fix a P-critical bug, and the regressions are relatively small.