rustdoc: update to pulldown-cmark 0.11

[notriddle]

r? rustdoc

This pull request updates rustdoc to the latest version of pulldown-cmark. Along with adding new markdown extensions (which this PR doesn't enable), the new pulldown-cmark version also fixes a large number of bugs. Because all text files successfully parse as markdown, these bugfixes change the output, which can break people's existing docs.

A crater run, #121659, has already been run for this change.

The first commit upgrades and fixes rustdoc. The second commit adds a lint for the footnote and block quote parser changes, which break the largest numbers of docs in the Crater run. The strikethrough change was mitigated in pulldown-cmark itself.

Unblocks rust-lang/rust-clippy#12876

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

The list of allowed third-party dependencies may have been modified! You must ensure that any new dependencies have compatible licenses before merging.

cc @davidtwco, @wesleywiser

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[GuillaumeGomez]

YES, FINALLY! Thanks so much for this update! r=me once CI pass

[notriddle]

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

📌 Commit a5fc783 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r- rollup=iffy
guess this causes this? #127148 (comment)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in coverage instrumentation.

cc @Zalathar

[notriddle]

Fix bare URL warnings...

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

📌 Commit c8592da has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c8592da with merge 09437ff...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[RUSTC-TIMING] miri test:false 62.684
[RUSTC-TIMING] miri test:false 3.134
    Finished `release` profile [optimized] target(s) in 0.40s
thread 'main' panicked at src/lib.rs:1668:17:
failed to copy `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage1-tools\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\release\miri.exe` to `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage1-tools-bin\miri.exe`: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process. (os error 32)
##[endgroup]
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:10
  local time: Tue, Jul  2, 2024  2:30:23 AM
  network time: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 02:30:24 GMT

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[notriddle]

No way this caused that.

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c8592da with merge 66b4f00...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 66b4f00 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (66b4f00): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.8%	[0.2%, 1.8%]	16
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 0.6%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.2%, 1.8%]	16

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 0.3%)

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[1.7%, 4.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-4.3%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary -0.3%)

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)	1.6%	[1.4%, 1.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.7%, -0.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[1.4%, 1.8%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 742.044s -> 720.847s (-2.86%)
Artifact size: 327.58 MiB -> 328.33 MiB (0.23%)

[Kobzol]

This was an update to a newer version of a third-party dependency, so nothing much that we can do here. The update also apparently resolves several bugs, and we do more work per doc block. Marking as triaged.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged