Rollup of 2 pull requests #149486

matthiaskrgr · 2025-11-30T17:44:24Z

Successful merges:

Fix bad intra-doc-link preprocessing #148169 (Fix bad intra-doc-link preprocessing)
coverage: Store signature/body spans and branch spans in the expansion tree #149471 (coverage: Store signature/body spans and branch spans in the expansion tree)

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

…ocess, r=lolbinarycat Fix bad intra-doc-link preprocessing How did rust-lang#147981 happen? 1. We don't parse intra-doc links as Rust paths or qpaths. Instead they follow a very lenient bespoke grammar. We completely ignore Markdown links if they contain characters that don't match `/[a-zA-Z0-9_:<>, !*&;]/` (we don't even emit lint *broken-intra-doc-links* for these). 2. PR [rust-lang#132748](rust-lang#132748) made rustdoc intepret more Markdown links as potential intra-doc links. Namely, if the link is surrounded by backticks (and some other conditions apply) then it doesn't matter if the (partially processed) link contains bad characters as defined above (cc `ignore_urllike && should_ignore_link(path_str)`). 3. However, rustdoc's `preprocess_link` must be kept in sync with a simplified counterpart in rustc. More specifically, whenever rustdoc's preprocessor returns a successful result then rustc's must yield the same result. Otherwise, rustc doesn't resolve the necessary links for rustdoc. 4. This uncovered a "dormant bug" / "mistake" in rustc's `preprocess_link`. Namely, when presented with a link like `struct@Type@suffix`, it didn't cut off the disambiguator if present (here: `struct@`). Instead it `rsplit('``@')``` which is incorrect if the "path" contains ```@``` itself (yielding `suffix` instead of `Type@suffix` here). Prior to PR [rust-lang#132748](rust-lang#132748), a link like ``[`struct@Type@suffix`]`` was not considered a potential intra-doc link / worth querying rustc for. Now it is due to the backticks. 5. Finally, since rustc didn't record a resolution for `Type@suffix` (it only recorded `suffix` (to be `Res::Err`)), we triggered an assertion we have in place to catch cases like this. Fixes rust-lang#147981. I didn't and still don't have the time to investigate if rust-lang#132748 led to more rustc/rustdoc mismatches (after all, the PR made rustdoc's `preprocess_link` return `Some(Ok(_))` in more cases). I've at least added another much needed "warning banner" & made the existing one more flashy. While this fixes a stable-to-beta regression, I don't think it's worth beta backporting, esp. since it's only P-medium and since the final 1.91 release steps commence today / the next days, so it would only be stressful to get it in on time. However, feel free to nominate. <sub>(I've written such a verbose PR description since I tend to reread my old PR descriptions in the far future to fully freshen my memories when I have to work again in this area)</sub> r? ``@lolbinarycat``

coverage: Store signature/body spans and branch spans in the expansion tree In order to support coverage instrumentation of expansion regions, we need to reduce the amount of code that assumes we're only instrumenting a flat function body. Moving more data into expansion tree nodes is an incremental step in that direction. There should be no change to compiler output.

matthiaskrgr · 2025-11-30T17:44:45Z

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

bors · 2025-11-30T17:44:48Z

📌 Commit b49b18b has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-11-30T17:56:55Z

⌛ Testing commit b49b18b with merge b84478a...

bors · 2025-11-30T21:14:09Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing b84478a to main...

rust-timer · 2025-11-30T21:14:46Z

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Message	Perf Build Sha
#148169	Fix bad intra-doc-link preprocessing	`ad89ade327516cd91b36973ed30b28da0dfb5844` (link)
#149471	coverage: Store signature/body spans and branch spans in th…	`556b67130a0a100f429ee7f7ea048610a2021673` (link)

previous master: f40a70d2bc

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

github-actions · 2025-11-30T21:17:33Z

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing f40a70d (parent) -> b84478a (this PR)

Test differences

Show 19 test diffs

Stage 1

[coverage-map] tests/coverage/branch/fn-in-macro.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
[coverage-map] tests/coverage/macros/call-site-body.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/branch/fn-in-macro.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when the profiler runtime is not available) (J1)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/macros/call-site-body.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when the profiler runtime is not available) (J1)
[ui] tests/rustdoc-ui/intra-doc/empty-associated-items.rs: pass -> [missing] (J1)
[ui] tests/rustdoc-ui/intra-doc/malformed-paths.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Stage 2

[ui] tests/rustdoc-ui/intra-doc/empty-associated-items.rs: pass -> [missing] (J0)
[ui] tests/rustdoc-ui/intra-doc/malformed-paths.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/branch/fn-in-macro.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when cross-compiling) (J2)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/macros/call-site-body.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when cross-compiling) (J2)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/branch/fn-in-macro.rs: [missing] -> pass (J3)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/macros/call-site-body.rs: [missing] -> pass (J3)
[coverage-map] tests/coverage/branch/fn-in-macro.rs: [missing] -> pass (J4)
[coverage-map] tests/coverage/macros/call-site-body.rs: [missing] -> pass (J4)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/branch/fn-in-macro.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when the profiler runtime is not available) (J5)
[coverage-run] tests/coverage/macros/call-site-body.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when the profiler runtime is not available) (J5)

Additionally, 3 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard b84478a1c477756cd3e1974eda867a6bb31e8902 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

aarch64-apple: 7977.3s -> 9032.9s (+13.2%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3: 5566.6s -> 6200.7s (+11.4%)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 5641.9s -> 5124.7s (-9.2%)
aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3602.3s -> 3317.1s (-7.9%)
x86_64-gnu-tools: 3045.5s -> 2806.8s (-7.8%)
dist-x86_64-msvc: 6541.1s -> 7027.7s (+7.4%)
x86_64-gnu-stable: 6318.8s -> 6776.5s (+7.2%)
i686-msvc-2: 8103.4s -> 7520.5s (-7.2%)
dist-ohos-armv7: 3806.0s -> 4061.0s (+6.7%)
aarch64-msvc-2: 4719.4s -> 5030.9s (+6.6%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

rust-timer · 2025-11-30T22:39:39Z

Finished benchmarking commit (b84478a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 14.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	14.9%	[14.9%, 14.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 469.915s -> 471.694s (0.38%)
Artifact size: 386.98 MiB -> 386.95 MiB (-0.01%)

Zalathar and others added 6 commits November 30, 2025 18:31

coverage: Test some edge cases involving macro expansion

a3bf870

coverage: Store fn_sig_span and body_span in the expansion tree

61c923b

coverage: Store branch spans in the expansion tree

ac43716

Fix bad intra-doc-link preprocessing

55d90c0

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 30, 2025

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 30, 2025

bors merged commit b84478a into rust-lang:main Nov 30, 2025
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.93.0 milestone Nov 30, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Rollup of 2 pull requests #149486

Rollup of 2 pull requests #149486

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 30, 2025 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

Uh oh!

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Nov 30, 2025

Stage 1

Stage 2

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Rollup of 2 pull requests #149486

Rollup of 2 pull requests #149486

Conversation

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 30, 2025 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Nov 30, 2025

Test differences

Stage 1

Stage 2

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Nov 30, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Instruction count

Max RSS (memory usage)

Cycles

Binary size

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

matthiaskrgr commented Nov 30, 2025 •

edited by rustbot

Loading