Bring back i686-pc-windows-gnullvm target

[mati865]

#148751 inadvertently removed i686-pc-windows-gnullvm std build when migrating to native CI runners. Since this change was not agreed upon, we should bring back prebuilt std builds for that target.

There are a few runners that could do it: dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw, dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw, dist-various-1 and dist-various-2.
dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw already takes slightly over 2 hours, so the faster dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw is a better choice.
We can also use dist-various-x job, they don't have llvm-mingw toolchain, but it's trivial to install one.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 8d37d1a (8d37d1a7f1312001d81b117bc78f0a18d9bf1834, parent: 9b82a4fffe2b215f488a6dfdc0b508235f37c85c)

[rustbot]

r? @jdno

rustbot has assigned @jdno.
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

[mati865]

There are a few runners that could do it: dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw, dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw, dist-various-1 and dist-various-2.
dist-x86_64-llvm-mingw already takes slightly over 2 hours, so the faster dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw is a better choice.
We can also use dist-various-x job, they don't have llvm-mingw toolchain, but it's trivial to install one.

Let me know if you prefer it to be done another way.

[jieyouxu]

Thanks, using dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw seems fine.

View changes since this review

[jieyouxu]

Let's try using dist-aarch64-llvm-mingw, at worst, we can revert and use another runner if the overall job time takes too long.

r? me @bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 9498f21 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[mati865]

Thanks for the quick review hat-trick.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 9498f21 with merge a80d39a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing a80d39a to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 47cd712 (parent) -> a80d39a (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard a80d39a086683ae5be0a1638cfd84600330d2447 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-solaris: 8682.5s -> 5786.4s (-33.4%)
2. dist-sparcv9-solaris: 8649.7s -> 5866.3s (-32.2%)
3. dist-powerpc64le-linux-gnu: 7441.8s -> 5625.9s (-24.4%)
4. dist-aarch64-apple: 6508.7s -> 8092.8s (+24.3%)
5. dist-x86_64-netbsd: 6361.0s -> 4974.6s (-21.8%)
6. dist-riscv64-linux: 6503.8s -> 5118.7s (-21.3%)
7. x86_64-gnu-debug: 7457.6s -> 6028.4s (-19.2%)
8. dist-armv7-linux: 6556.5s -> 5305.3s (-19.1%)
9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-1: 3540.3s -> 2878.8s (-18.7%)
10. i686-gnu-2: 6952.5s -> 5696.7s (-18.1%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a80d39a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary -2.0%)

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)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 469.029s -> 468.135s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 386.77 MiB -> 386.71 MiB (-0.02%)