Update rustc-hash to version 2 but again

[Noratrieb]

it's like #129533 but not closed by bors and rebased

r? WaffleLapkin meow

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in exhaustiveness checking

cc @Nadrieril

rustdoc-json-types is a public (although nightly-only) API. If possible, consider changing src/librustdoc/json/conversions.rs; otherwise, make sure you bump the FORMAT_VERSION constant.

cc @CraftSpider, @aDotInTheVoid, @Enselic, @obi1kenobi

Changes to the size of AST and/or HIR nodes.

cc @nnethercote

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.

[aDotInTheVoid]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 8208f88 with merge a39b690...

[Noratrieb]

@bors rollup=never

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a39b690 (a39b690443902f3ac282113ba265aad7a8f5d95d)

[Noratrieb]

@bors r=WaffleLapkin

[bors]

📌 Commit 8208f88 has been approved by WaffleLapkin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #131948) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[workingjubilee]

Bors thinks this is queued?
@bors r-

[workingjubilee]

rebasededed

[workingjubilee]

@bors r=WaffleLapkin

[bors]

📌 Commit 0c8d81b has been approved by WaffleLapkin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0c8d81b with merge f814b34...

[rust-log-analyzer]

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

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

test [run-make] tests\run-make\zero-extend-abi-param-passing ... ok
test [run-make] tests\run-make\test-benches ... ok
test [run-make] tests\run-make\share-generics-export-again ... ok
test [run-make] tests\run-make\rustc-crates-on-stable ... ok
Terminate batch job (Y/N)? 
##[error]The operation was canceled.
Post job cleanup.
[command]"C:\Program Files\Git\bin\git.exe" version
git version 2.46.2.windows.1

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[Noratrieb]

don't terminate my batch job D:
@bors retry

[workingjubilee]

as this PR has encountered many curses and has already had to be reopened:

@bors p=1

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0c8d81b with merge 662180b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: WaffleLapkin
Pushing 662180b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (662180b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

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

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	8
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	10
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.9%	[-1.4%, -0.6%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.5%, 0.2%]	18

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.1%, secondary -2.2%)

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)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.1%)

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)	5.8%	[5.8%, 5.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.7%, -2.6%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 782.102s -> 781.679s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 333.75 MiB -> 333.70 MiB (-0.02%)

[pnkfelix]

• primary improvements to unicode-normalization and libc
• primary regressions to typenum and serde
• i don't think there's anything interesting to investigate here. marking as triaged.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged