rustdoc: include impl generics / self in search index

[notriddle]

Fixes #92205

[rust-highfive]

Some changes occurred in clean/types.rs.

cc @camelid

[rust-highfive]

r? @CraftSpider

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

[camelid]

cc #92339

Does this PR cover that one? I've been meaning to finish it but haven't gotten to it, so I'd be happy to be able to close it since it's been sitting for so long.

[notriddle]

@camelid

No, this PR does not address impl Trait or raw pointers. It should be completely orthogonal to both of those.

[notriddle]

r? @camelid

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #97239) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #97365) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[camelid]

I left some general feedback about code architecture, but unfortunately I don't think I understand the search index well enough to review this.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Looks good to me apart comments from @camelid. :)

[notriddle]

I agree that these aren’t great, so to actually fix them, I’m going to need to change how the parent _stack works. Right now, it doesn’t actually include the impl (which carries the generics I care about), but instead it gets translated to point at the type.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Is it ready for a final review?

[notriddle]

Yeah, I think so.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Thanks!

@bors: r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit 718269a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 718269a with merge 0acc4a3...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 0acc4a3 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0acc4a3): comparison url.

Instruction count

• Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	0.5%	1.0%	3
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	1.1%	1.1%	3
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	0.5%	1.0%	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: no relevant changes found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	1.6%	1.6%	1
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	-1.6%	-2.2%	3
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	-0.8%	-2.2%	4

Cycles

Results

• Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
• Secondary benchmarks: no relevant changes found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	2.2%	2.5%	3
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	2.2%	2.5%	3

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

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩² ↩³

[pnkfelix]

visiting for weekly performance triage.

Benchmark	Profile	Scenario	% Change	Significance Factor?
serde-1.0.136	doc	full	0.96%	7.36x
syn-1.0.89	doc	full	0.44%	3.01x
diesel-1.4.8	doc	full	0.24%	1.60x

This regressed doc-generation for a few primary benchmarks, but I think that might be a inherent cost of a change like this. I'm going to mark it as triaged based on that assumption.

@rustbot label: perf-regression-triaged

[GuillaumeGomez]

It's expected because it increases the size of the search index because we add information into it.