rustdoc: Resolve some more doc links early

[petrochenkov]

Trying another subset of #94857 that is not too expensive.

[rust-highfive]

r? @GuillaumeGomez

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

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

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

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e0b71ff with merge bd0e0e462384317dff100d42939285d5a16e4e9b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: bd0e0e462384317dff100d42939285d5a16e4e9b (bd0e0e462384317dff100d42939285d5a16e4e9b)

[rust-timer]

Queued bd0e0e462384317dff100d42939285d5a16e4e9b with parent 51ea9bb, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (bd0e0e462384317dff100d42939285d5a16e4e9b): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	1	0	13	22	14
mean2	2.7%	N/A	-2.2%	-3.4%	-1.9%
max	2.7%	N/A	-4.9%	-5.4%	-4.9%

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

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[Kobzol]

syn is quite noisy lately, so the regression might be a fluke.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Does it fix the missing call to unindent_comment from your topic in zulip?

[petrochenkov]

@GuillaumeGomez

Does it fix the missing call to unindent_comment from your topic in zulip?

No, I'll submit that change later.

Let's actually land this, it's a pure performance win, and a relatively large one, and I won't be able to work on other parts of #94857 until the next week.
This can be rolled up with #96260 to save CI time.
@rustbot ready

[GuillaumeGomez]

Thanks! I prefer to keep perf improvements merged on their own so we can track them more efficiently.

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit e0b71ff has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e0b71ff with merge 0b3404b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 0b3404b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0b3404b): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvements found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	0	0	14	22	14
mean2	N/A	N/A	-2.2%	-3.4%	-2.2%
max	N/A	N/A	-4.9%	-5.4%	-4.9%

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

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩