Prevent <> links to be interpreted for intra-doc links

[GuillaumeGomez]

As discussed in this thread. As mentioned, the intra-doc RFC states that <> links shouldn't be potential intra-doc links: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1946-intra-rustdoc-links.html#no-autolinks-style.

I renamed markdown_links into potential_intra_doc_markdown_links to make it more obvious what it's doing.

cc @petrochenkov
r? @notriddle

[GuillaumeGomez]

I don't think it should have a noticeable impact on perf but better check it:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 69bff8d9a6f729ec81d3e4284f17127d26e5655d with merge 60e35f84a244c676ef8161f5fc53872259f8dbb3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 60e35f84a244c676ef8161f5fc53872259f8dbb3 (60e35f84a244c676ef8161f5fc53872259f8dbb3)

[rust-timer]

Queued 60e35f84a244c676ef8161f5fc53872259f8dbb3 with parent 0516711, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (60e35f84a244c676ef8161f5fc53872259f8dbb3): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	0	3	0	0	0
mean2	N/A	1.3%	N/A	N/A	N/A
max	N/A	1.4%	N/A	N/A	N/A

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[GuillaumeGomez]

I didn't expect a regression that big...

[GuillaumeGomez]

Let's try with the condition in the if let binding directly if it changes anything...

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 1040c582189442b34dd910e3cf560844ae53c76f with merge fd6020410eb7165c95aa6aa41447d02ee8d48051...

[petrochenkov]

I didn't expect a regression that big...

The regressions are not in rustdoc, looks like random fluctuations.

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: fd6020410eb7165c95aa6aa41447d02ee8d48051 (fd6020410eb7165c95aa6aa41447d02ee8d48051)

[rust-timer]

Queued fd6020410eb7165c95aa6aa41447d02ee8d48051 with parent 8305398, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fd6020410eb7165c95aa6aa41447d02ee8d48051): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	0	2	0	0	0
mean2	N/A	1.2%	N/A	N/A	N/A
max	N/A	1.2%	N/A	N/A	N/A

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[GuillaumeGomez]

No change. Well, let's go then...

@bors r=notriddle

[bors]

📌 Commit 1040c582189442b34dd910e3cf560844ae53c76f has been approved by notriddle

[petrochenkov]

Suggested change

	crate fn potential_intra_doc_markdown_links(md: &str) -> Vec<MarkdownLink> {
	crate fn intra_doc_markdown_links(md: &str) -> Vec<MarkdownLink> {

With #96135 preprocessing is done as a part of this function and all the returned links are indeed intra doc links.

[GuillaumeGomez]

I'll keep the kind pattern matching but I'll remove the other changes.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #96135) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors r=notriddle

[bors]

📌 Commit f988f86 has been approved by notriddle

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f988f86 with merge 879aff3...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing 879aff3 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (879aff3): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
• Secondary benchmarks: no relevant changes found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	1	0	0	0	1
mean2	1.7%	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.7%
max	1.7%	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.7%

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩