rustdoc: Fix missing repr attribute in doc(inline) on foreign items

[GuillaumeGomez]

Fixes #110698.

r? @notriddle

[Noratrieb]

This encodes more attributes that may be quite common in some crates (like libc), so let's see the perf impact. Although I don't worry too much.
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 3f08284 with merge df3a8d02aba793baba13db9147d6d76767cd0f0c...

[notriddle]

If the overhead is considered unacceptable, I'm pretty sure rustdoc can reconstitute the data using AtdDef::repr

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: df3a8d02aba793baba13db9147d6d76767cd0f0c (df3a8d02aba793baba13db9147d6d76767cd0f0c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (df3a8d02aba793baba13db9147d6d76767cd0f0c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

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.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	2.0%	[1.6%, 2.3%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[1.6%, 2.3%]	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)	1.9%	[1.8%, 2.1%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[2.8%, 4.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[1.8%, 2.1%]	3

[GuillaumeGomez]

Seems like the impact is small. \o/

[notriddle]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 3f08284 has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors rollup=iffy

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 3f08284 with merge 98578d8df50afc667038c6094532d00b4da58691...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[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)

[ehuss]

@bors retry

python setuptools issue

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 3f08284 with merge f495605...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing f495605 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f495605): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.7%]	1

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