Support reading thin archives in ArArchiveBuilder

[bjorn3]

And switch to using ArArchiveBuilder with the LLVM backend too now that all regressions are fixed.

Fixes #107407
Fixes #107162
#107495 has been fixed in a previous PR already.

[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]

The run-make-support library was changed

cc @jieyouxu

This PR modifies tests/run-make/. If this PR is trying to port a Makefile
run-make test to use rmake.rs, please update the
run-make port tracking issue
so we can track our progress. You can either modify the tracking issue
directly, or you can comment on the tracking issue and link this PR.

cc @jieyouxu

[jieyouxu]

Thanks! I have some questions regarding the test mostly.

[jieyouxu]

@rustbot author

[bjorn3]

@rustbot ready

[jieyouxu]

Thanks!

[jieyouxu]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit db68a19 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jieyouxu]

Thanks, the changes look good, just one question

[jieyouxu]

Feel free to r=me after PR CI is green

[bjorn3]

@bors r=jieyouxu

[bors]

📌 Commit 901c9da has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 901c9da with merge 57ad5b9...

[rust-log-analyzer]

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

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

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[jieyouxu]

@bors retry (failed to remove cargo.exe, elevated windows fs failure rates)

[jieyouxu]

Pinging back #127883 for more data points.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 901c9da with merge d2b5aa6...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing d2b5aa6 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d2b5aa6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.9%, secondary -3.0%)

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)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1

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: 751.489s -> 752.088s (0.08%)
Artifact size: 339.19 MiB -> 339.16 MiB (-0.01%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Regression looks genuine. It might be worth doing some profiling of the Rust archive writer to see if there's opportunities for optimization since it presumably hasn't received much attention so far.