Bump bootstrap compiler to 1.69 beta

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r? @pietroalbini

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[klensy]

This too?

rust/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs

Lines 1623 to 1630 in 9b60e6c

	#[cfg(not(bootstrap))]
	pub fn roundevenf32(x: f32) -> f32;
	/// Returns the nearest integer to an `f64`. Rounds half-way cases to the number
	/// with an even least significant digit.
	///
	/// This intrinsic does not have a stable counterpart.
	#[cfg(not(bootstrap))]
	pub fn roundevenf64(x: f64) -> f64;

There also few in stdarch, but this should be handled separately?
https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/blob/a0c30f3e3c75adcd6ee7efc94014ebcead61c507/crates/core_arch/src/arm_shared/neon/mod.rs#L6860

[pietroalbini]

@bors r+

This too?

That doesn't seem to be present in Mark's branch?

[bors]

📌 Commit da88c41614fca80f13958b9b1de5c7b7625ed1b9 has been approved by pietroalbini

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

stdarch can self-own bumping those, we don't typically touch submodules as part of these bumps.

The roundeven functions are likely recently added (in #95317) even though the commit is pretty old, so my guess is they're probably fine to bump next cycle.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #109001) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r=pietroalbini

[bors]

📌 Commit 03411df4ee9dd185712973e3525b9cc5831be86c has been approved by pietroalbini

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 03411df4ee9dd185712973e3525b9cc5831be86c with merge 5a6f19749c02d4456145ebf61ab920ff52c21493...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r=pietroalbini

[bors]

📌 Commit df0be2d has been approved by pietroalbini

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors rollup=never

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit df0be2d with merge 424f5bc5457b181035a19f85879474cf95103c30...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job dist-i686-mingw failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

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

[257/3021] Building CXX object lib/BinaryFormat/CMakeFiles/LLVMBinaryFormat.dir/XCOFF.cpp.obj
[258/3021] Building CXX object lib/Extensions/CMakeFiles/LLVMExtensions.dir/Extensions.cpp.obj
[259/3021] Linking CXX static library lib\libLLVMExtensions.a
FAILED: lib/libLLVMExtensions.a 
cmd.exe /C "cd . && "C:\Program Files\CMake\bin\cmake.exe" -E rm -f lib\libLLVMExtensions.a && D:\a\rust\rust\mingw32\bin\ar.exe qc lib\libLLVMExtensions.a  lib/Extensions/CMakeFiles/LLVMExtensions.dir/Extensions.cpp.obj && D:\a\rust\rust\mingw32\bin\ranlib.exe lib\libLLVMExtensions.a && cd ."
D:\a\rust\rust\mingw32\bin\ar.exe: could not create temporary file whilst writing archive: no more archived files
[260/3021] Linking CXX static library lib\libLLVMBinaryFormat.a
[261/3021] Building CXX object lib/MC/CMakeFiles/LLVMMC.dir/MCAsmBackend.cpp.obj
[262/3021] Building CXX object lib/MC/CMakeFiles/LLVMMC.dir/ELFObjectWriter.cpp.obj
[263/3021] Building CXX object lib/MC/CMakeFiles/LLVMMC.dir/ConstantPools.cpp.obj
[263/3021] Building CXX object lib/MC/CMakeFiles/LLVMMC.dir/ConstantPools.cpp.obj
[264/3021] Building CXX object lib/MC/CMakeFiles/LLVMMC.dir/MCAsmInfoCOFF.cpp.obj
[265/3021] Building CXX object lib/MC/CMakeFiles/LLVMMC.dir/MCAsmInfo.cpp.obj
[266/3021] Linking CXX executable bin\llvm-tblgen.exe
ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.
command did not execute successfully, got: exit code: 1


build script failed, must exit now', C:\Users\runneradmin\.cargo\registry\src\index.crates.io-1cd66030c949c28d\cmake-0.1.48\src\lib.rs:975:5
 finished in 56.650 seconds
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:04:42

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors retry

I doubt this is spurious, but feels likely to be very annoying to track down so want to get another datapoint.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit df0be2d with merge 500e03b505ad296cccbd1180ff2f4bd26e6e4aea...

[ehuss]

no more archived files happens fairly often (#108227).

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[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)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit df0be2d with merge 13afbda...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: pietroalbini
Pushing 13afbda to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (13afbda): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[1.7%, 2.9%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[-0.4%, 2.9%]	4

Cycles

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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[0.5%, 0.5%]	2