Support documenting cargo

[jyn514]

The primary motivation is to have the cargo docs show up on https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/cargo, but as a nice side effect this makes x doc cargo work locally.

cc @rust-lang/cargo

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[weihanglo]

What would be the consequence if Cargo breaks its rustdoc build? I mean, is there any lint rule set for building those internal docs? In Cargo, we currently set -D warnings.

[jyn514]

@weihanglo that will delay the submodule bump until it's fixed in cargo. I don't think rustc sets any custom warnings for out of tree tools though, so deny-warnings in cargo's CI should catch it ahead of time.

Actually I need to investigate that, I saw a warning locally but CI hasn't failed, I'll see if I can build documentation in x86_64-gnu-tools instead of waiting for a full bors merge.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Diff itself seems fine (r=me), not sure if you wanted some other sign off (e.g., cargo team approval). I don't think that's necessary myself but will leave it up to you.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

(But please do investigate the warning as well).

[jyn514]

Ah, looks like we don't deny warnings for submodules: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0a48fa3a8c31cb16290ef17ca6d69ee6718c2289/src/bootstrap/builder.rs#L1647-L1658

So this shouldn't block a submodule update; letting the cargo team decide what warnings they want seems reasonable. We can change it in a follow-up if anyone has strong opinions.

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

📌 Commit 0a48fa3a8c31cb16290ef17ca6d69ee6718c2289 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0a48fa3a8c31cb16290ef17ca6d69ee6718c2289 with merge df9ce1a876b243ffb94c0e3b9562b70c53d4cb07...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[jyn514]

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum rollup=iffy (adding new crates to the workspace changes the lockfile a lot)

[bors]

📌 Commit f94c926 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f94c926 with merge daccb3d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing daccb3d to master...

[jyn514]

Diff itself seems fine (r=me), not sure if you wanted some other sign off (e.g., cargo team approval). I don't think that's necessary myself but will leave it up to you.

Oh, sorry - @Mark-Simulacrum I just realized you've been missing context this whole time, the cargo team already approved this: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/cargo-sweep.20and.20.60incremental.60

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (daccb3d): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	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)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0