[rustdoc] Fix duplicated footnote IDs
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131901.
Footnote IDs were increased locally (ie, on the docblock) and not globally (ie, on the whole item page).
cc `@aDotInTheVoid`
r? `@notriddle`
rustdoc: Treat declarative macros more like other item kinds
Apparently at some time in the past we were unable to generate an href for the module path inside the visibility of decl macros 2.0 (`pub(in ...)`). As a result of this, a whole separate function was introduced specifically for printing the visibility of decl macros that didn't attempt to generate any links. The description of PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84074 states:
> This fixes the overly-complex invariant mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83237#issuecomment-815346570, where the macro source can't have any links in it only because the cache hasn't been populated yet.
I can no longer reproduce the original issue. Reusing the existing visibility rendering logic *seems* to work just fine (I couldn't come up with any counterexamples, though I invite you to prove me wrong).
* Fixes#83000
* Fixes the visibility showing up "twice" in rustdoc-JSON output: Once as the `visibility` field, once baked into the source[^1]
* Fixes `#[doc(hidden)]` not getting rendered on doc(hidden) decl macros 2.0 under `--document-hiden-items` (for decl macros 1.2 the issue remains; I will address this separately when fixing #132304).
---
<details><summary>Outdated Section</summary>
NOTE: The current version of this PR is committing a UI crime, I'd like to receive feedback on that. Maybe you have a satisfactory solution for how to remedy it. Namely, as you know we have two different ways of / modes for highlighting code with color:
1. Only highlighting links / item paths and avoiding to highlight tokens by kind like keywords (to reduce visual noise and maybe also artifact size). Used for item declarations(\*).
2. Highlighting tokens by kind. Used for code blocks written by the user.
(\*): With the notable exception being macro declarations! Well, since this PR reuses the same function for rendering the item visibility (which only makes sense), we have a clash of modes: We now use both ways of highlighting code for decl macros: №1 for the visibility, №2 for the rest. This awkward. See for yourself:
* On master: 
* On this branch: 
</details>
Furthermore, we now no longer syntax-highlight declarative macros (be it `macro_rules!` or `macro`) since that was inconsistent with the way we render all other item kinds. See (collapsed) *Outdated Section* above. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132302#discussion_r1821310783.
| On master | On this branch |
|---|---|
|  |  |
[^1]: E.g., `"visibility":{"restricted":{"parent":1,"path":"::a"}},/*OMITTED*/,"inner":{"macro":"pub(in a) macro by_example_vis_named($foo:expr) {\n ...\n}"}`
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
Remove the `Arc` rt::init allocation for thread info
Removes an allocation pre-main by just not storing anything in std:🧵:Thread for the main thread.
- The thread name can just be a hard coded literal, as was done in #123433.
- Storing ThreadId and Parker in a static that is initialized once at startup. This uses SyncUnsafeCell and MaybeUninit as this is quite performance critical and we don't need synchronization or to store a tag value and possibly leave in a panic.
rustdoc: rewrite stability inheritance as a doc pass
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 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/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 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131020
r? `@notriddle`
Add `field@` and `variant@` doc-link disambiguators
I'm not sure if this is big enough to need an fcp or not, but this is something I found missing when trying to refer to a field in macro-generated docs, not knowing if a method might be defined as well. Obviously, there are definitely other uses.
In the case where it's not disambiguated, methods (and I suppose other associated items in the value namespace) still take priority, which `@jyn514` said was an oversight but I think is probably the desired behavior 99% of the time anyway - shadowing a field with an accessor method is a very common pattern. If fields and methods with the same name started conflicting, it would be a breaking change. Though, to quote them:
> jyn: maybe you can break this only if both [the method and the field] are public
> jyn: rustc has some future-incompat warning level
> jyn: that gets through -A warnings and --cap-lints from cargo
That'd be out of scope of this PR, though.
Fixes#80283
This adds labels to the icons and moves them away from the search box.
These changes are made together, because they work together, but are based on
several complaints:
* The [+/-] thing are a Reddit-ism. They don't look like buttons, but look
like syntax
<https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/More.20visual.20difference.20for.20the.20.2B.2F-.20.20Icons>,
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/59851>
(some of these are laundry lists with more suggestions, but they all
mention [+/-] looking wrong)
* The settings, help, and summary buttons are also too hard to recognize
<https://lwn.net/Articles/987070/>,
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90310>,
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/14475#issuecomment-274241997>,
<https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/improve-rustdoc-design/12758>
("Not all functionality is self-explanatory, for example the [+] button in
the top right corner, the theme picker or the settings button.")
The toggle-all and toggle-individual buttons both need done at once, since we
want them to look like they go together. This changes them from both being
[+/-] to both being arrows.
Settings and Help are also migrated, so that the whole group can benefit from
being described using actual words.
Additionally, the Help button is only shown on SERPs, not all the time.
This is done for two major reasons:
* Most of what's in there is search-related. The things that aren't are
keyboard commands, and the search box tells you about that anyway.
Pressing <kbd>?</kbd> will temporarily show the button and its popover.
* I'm trading it off by showing the help button, even on mobile.
It's useful since you can use the search engine suggestions there.
* The three buttons were causing line wrapping on too many desktop layouts.
