Rollup of 2 pull requests

[TaKO8Ki]

Successful merges:

• remove unused field #112677 (remove unused field)
• rustdoc: render generic params & where-clauses of cross-crate assoc tys in impls #112920 (rustdoc: render generic params & where-clauses of cross-crate assoc tys in impls)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

[TaKO8Ki]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=2

[bors]

📌 Commit 40e3fcf has been approved by TaKO8Ki

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 40e3fcf with merge 36fb58e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: TaKO8Ki
Pushing 36fb58e to master...

[rust-timer]

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#112677	remove unused field	0bf205b42a61850f088a2e89b1efe54b7108dc8b (link)
#112920	rustdoc: render generic params & where-clauses of cross-cra…	d03f5aaaface63833c9556dab6dc3fe4968231ff (link)

previous master: 6f8c27ae89

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 (36fb58e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.8%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 1.1%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.4%, 0.8%]	5

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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)	1.4%	[1.2%, 1.6%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.4%, 1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.4%	[1.2%, 1.6%]	3

Cycles

Results

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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 663.81s -> 662.919s (-0.13%)

[fmease]

Huh, weird, master now includes the commits found in this rollup but none of three PRs are marked as merged (rollup PR + the containing 2 PRs) and they are now marked as conflicting. Asking T-infra on Zulip...

[fmease]

Re perf regression: I've fixed a correctness bug in rustdoc with the most straightforward solution. We are now doing more work per associated type to gather the necessary data. It's unclear to me if there's a simple way to boost the perf.

Not sure if that suffices as an explanation. Hence not adding the triaged label.