Update bootstrap compiler to 1.65.0

[pietroalbini]

This PR updates the bootstrap compiler to Rust 1.65.0, removing the various cfg(bootstrap)s.

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

[Urgau]

Checking rustc_codegen_cranelift v0.1.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift)
error: unexpected parallel_compiler as condition name
|
= note: -D unexpected-cfgs implied by -D warnings
= help: was set with --cfg but isn't in the --check-cfg expected names

Seems like rustc_codegen_cranelift is neither compiled as Mode::Rustc nor as Mode::ToolRustc:

rust/src/bootstrap/lib.rs

Lines 199 to 200 in 8fd6d03

	(Some(Mode::Rustc), "parallel_compiler", None),
	(Some(Mode::ToolRustc), "parallel_compiler", None),

---

Adding the same previous line but with Mode::Codegen should fix the build error:

     (Some(Mode::ToolRustc), "parallel_compiler", None),
+    (Some(Mode::Codegen), "parallel_compiler", None),

Sorry for the inconvenience should have checked more closely when adding those.

[pietroalbini]

Thanks for the quick comment! Applied your patch.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

tidy error: /checkout/src/test/mir-opt/issue-101867.rs: leading newline

r=me with CI fixed.

[pietroalbini]

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit f026e117b0b5c28ce4a9d1eb53d46b628e58699e has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f026e117b0b5c28ce4a9d1eb53d46b628e58699e with merge 0ddedcf0f320ec78233123ef8517d7c43acccd55...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[Mark-Simulacrum]

 failures:

---- [mir-opt] src/test/mir-opt/issue-101867.rs stdout ----
1	// MIR for `main` 0 mir_map
2	
3	| User Type Annotations
-	| 0: user_ty: Canonical { max_universe: U0, variables: [], value: Ty(std::option::Option<u8>) }, span: $DIR/issue-101867.rs:5:12: 5:22, inferred_ty: std::option::Option<u8>
-	| 1: user_ty: Canonical { max_universe: U0, variables: [], value: Ty(std::option::Option<u8>) }, span: $DIR/issue-101867.rs:5:12: 5:22, inferred_ty: std::option::Option<u8>
+	| 0: user_ty: Canonical { max_universe: U0, variables: [], value: Ty(std::option::Option<u8>) }, span: $DIR/issue-101867.rs:3:12: 3:22, inferred_ty: std::option::Option<u8>
+	| 1: user_ty: Canonical { max_universe: U0, variables: [], value: Ty(std::option::Option<u8>) }, span: $DIR/issue-101867.rs:3:12: 3:22, inferred_ty: std::option::Option<u8>
6	|
7	fn main() -> () {
8	    let mut _0: ();                      // return place in scope 0 at $DIR/issue-101867.rs:+0:11: +0:11

thread '[mir-opt] src/test/mir-opt/issue-101867.rs' panicked at 'Actual MIR output differs from expected MIR output /checkout/src/test/mir-opt/issue_101867.main.mir_map.0.mir', src/tools/compiletest/src/runtest.rs:3515:25
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

[pietroalbini]

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

📌 Commit df752e839c0f43b0eb8dec050757691210770f5a has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[pietroalbini]

@davidtwco yeah it's better to do it in a followup PR.

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e1d7dec): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.2%, 1.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.5%, -2.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²

[nnethercote]

keccak has been noisy recently, these regressions probably aren't real.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Confirming noise - see #102292 (comment) for some graphs.