Bump boostrap compiler to new beta

[BoxyUwU]

try-job: *msvc*

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @TaKO8Ki

Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest

cc @jieyouxu

Some changes occurred to the intrinsics. Make sure the CTFE / Miri interpreter
gets adapted for the changes, if necessary.

cc @rust-lang/miri, @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest

cc @jieyouxu

Some changes occurred to the intrinsics. Make sure the CTFE / Miri interpreter
gets adapted for the changes, if necessary.

cc @rust-lang/miri, @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @TaKO8Ki

[BoxyUwU]

ok does it really need to reping everyone every time i push lol

[matthiaskrgr]

ok does it really need to reping everyone every time i push lol

might help to mark it as a draft 🤔

[jieyouxu]

Waiting to hear back on #139279 (comment) cc @m-ou-se (friendly ping).

[jieyouxu]

Thanks!

[jieyouxu]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=1 (bootstrap compiler bump)

[bors]

📌 Commit 0afd9eb has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0afd9eb with merge c211655...

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0afd9eb with merge 2277df8...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2277df8 (2277df8b33b72959072228acc7eefdfc07dbb8d8)

[Kobzol]

The conflicts are probably from #139378.

[jieyouxu]

Thanks!
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 5a5bda5 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jieyouxu]

@bors p=6 (blocking more work so scheduling ahead of rollups)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5a5bda5 with merge 6813f95...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 6813f95 to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 51548ce (parent) -> 6813f95 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 141 test diffs

Stage 0

• pin_macro::temp_lifetime: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Additionally, 140 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: mingw-check

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-apple-2: 4064.7s -> 5640.7s (38.8%)
2. x86_64-apple-1: 7227.9s -> 8149.1s (12.7%)
3. dist-x86_64-linux: 5048.5s -> 5520.8s (9.4%)
4. dist-arm-linux: 5396.3s -> 5796.9s (7.4%)
5. dist-loongarch64-linux: 6848.1s -> 6352.3s (-7.2%)
6. dist-x86_64-apple: 9764.9s -> 9127.4s (-6.5%)
7. dist-apple-various: 9511.7s -> 8919.7s (-6.2%)
8. x86_64-msvc-ext1: 7695.6s -> 7258.3s (-5.7%)
9. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4018.8s -> 4186.1s (4.2%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 5407.7s -> 5205.2s (-3.7%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6813f95): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 1.1%]	27
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -3.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-4.1%, -2.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 780.069s -> 780.636s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 366.22 MiB -> 366.13 MiB (-0.02%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Spot-checking a few of the regressions, they're returns to pre-existing levels (i.e., this is bimodality not actual regression).