rustdoc: rewrite stability inheritance as a doc pass

[lukas-code]

Since doc inlining can almost arbitrarily change the module hierarchy, we can't just use the HIR ancestors of an item to compute its effective stability. This PR moves the stability inheritance that I implemented in #130798 into a new doc pass propagate-stability that runs after doc inlining and uses the post-inlining ancestors of an item to correctly compute its effective stability.

fixes #131020

r? @notriddle

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

[notriddle]

Yes, this makes sense. I don't particularly like adding another pass, but it does obviously avoid the problem here.

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit cd31b3a has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit cd31b3a with merge 07f08ff...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing 07f08ff to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (07f08ff): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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%	[0.2%, 0.8%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.9%, 0.8%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.9%)

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)	1.9%	[1.6%, 2.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[1.6%, 2.3%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary -3.2%)

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 771.378s -> 769.179s (-0.29%)
Artifact size: 341.41 MiB -> 341.45 MiB (0.01%)

[Kobzol]

Documentation correctness fix, but the results are a wash anyway, especially on primary benchmarks.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged