compiler: upgrade to hashbrown 0.16.1

[cuviper]

See also #135634, #149159, and rust-lang/hashbrown#662.

This includes an in-tree upgrade of indexmap as well, which uses the
new HashTable buckets API internally, hopefully impacting performance
for the better.

And finally, we can remove #[rustc_unsafe_specialization_marker] on Copy!

cc @joboet
r? @Amanieu

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• There are issue links (such as #123) in the commit messages of the following commits.
  Please move them to the PR description, to avoid spamming the issues with references to the commit, and so this bot can automatically canonicalize them to avoid issues with subtree.
  • 348bfe3

[cuviper]

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[cuviper]

I believe this is a false positive due to hashbrown's nightly = ["foldhash?/nightly"], rust-lang/cargo#10801, but I can't add a comment here since this is an auto-generated/blessed source file. I did add a similar comment in PERMITTED_STDLIB_DEPENDENCIES in #149159.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: b09b198 (b09b19850a9395d3b0f4f45c44d8a95bde6add0c, parent: 9b81629631b382fd49ee3a20ac47797b1467e52d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b09b198): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.6%	[0.1%, 1.2%]	11
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.8%, -0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.8%, 0.2%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.6%, secondary -1.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[2.4%, 2.9%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.9%	[1.2%, 2.6%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-7.7%, -1.6%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.6%	[-0.6%, 2.9%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary -2.7%, secondary -3.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-5.5%, -2.2%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 476.337s -> 473.121s (-0.68%)
Artifact size: 383.08 MiB -> 383.14 MiB (0.02%)

[cuviper]

Perf results look like a wash to me, which I guess is not bad news.

I forgot that I'd published indexmap v2.13.0 since I started testing this though, so let's try with that too, if only to keep up with the latest.

@bors try
@rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 2e3ca0d (2e3ca0db58753f952e04a911d18f1cb94a286216, parent: 2850ca8295bc253186b291314ddc239632755475)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2e3ca0d): comparison URL.

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

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.2%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.1%, 1.2%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.8%, -0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	12
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, 0.2%]	9

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.1%, secondary -2.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[1.6%, 2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-8.3%, -1.8%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[-0.6%, 2.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-5.6%, -2.2%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: 474.424s -> 473.528s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 383.16 MiB -> 383.12 MiB (-0.01%)