Bump bootstrap compiler

[pietroalbini]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

[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

[Mark-Simulacrum]

CI is failing, seems like maybe atomic changes were premature?

[pietroalbini]

Removed two changes, now ./x.py build works locally:

• cfg(not(bootstrap)) in rustc_privacy
• cfg(bootstrap) in core

@rustbot ready

[Mark-Simulacrum]

CI is failing, I think rustfmt?

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit d8bfae4 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d8bfae4 with merge ada8c80...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing ada8c80 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ada8c80): comparison url.

Instruction count

• Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
• Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found

	mean1	max	count2
Regressions 😿 (primary)	0.9%	1.0%	2
Regressions 😿 (secondary)	2.0%	2.4%	6
Improvements 🎉 (primary)	N/A	N/A	0
Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	N/A	N/A	0
All 😿🎉 (primary)	0.9%	1.0%	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

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

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

2. number of relevant changes ↩

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Removing the regression label. We benchmark stage2 compilation, so this is almost certainly either as-yet-unrecognized noise or something subtle; the benchmarks in question look to have recently had an uptick in noise.