change stdlib circular dependencies handling

[belovdv]

Remove group_start and group_end, add dependencies to symbols.o
Implements the suggestion from #85805 (comment)
r? @petrochenkov

[belovdv]

@rustbot author

[belovdv]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 819daad38be437c3bb16a8b80bb01fb82cd367cc with merge b069a434200d6e5f6a8497bd62344966d1c24d3c...

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit c34047c has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c34047c with merge aed0a7b6c7bb973505567f10de217731597d1537...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[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)

[petrochenkov]

No output from the builder, weird.
@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c34047c with merge 699bfa8...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 699bfa8 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (699bfa8): 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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[1.1%, 1.3%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.4%	[3.0%, 3.9%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.9%, -0.7%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.9%, 1.3%]	8

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[4.8%, 4.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change↩↩²↩³

2. number of relevant changes↩↩²↩³

[nnethercote]

The html5ever and keccak benchmarks have been bimodal and thus misleading lately, so those regressions probably aren't real. The cranelift-codegen ones I'm not sure about, they may or may not be real.

[pnkfelix]

I think subsequent evidence from past week shows that cranelift-codegen is also behaving in a bimodal manner.

@rustbot label: perf-regression-triaged