Bump bootstrap compiler to 1.66

[Mark-Simulacrum]

This PR:

• Bumps version placeholders to release
• Bumps to latest beta
• cfg-steps code

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

[ehuss]

I think the PR title was intended to be 1.66, not 1.56?

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Alright, CI is passing here, so I think this is ready for review now.

[klensy]

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9fdc5f228e9c6b8bd1937fe51a95391e7c11b1c8/src/bootstrap/compile.rs#L699-L700

This should be removed too?

[pietroalbini]

pietro@backdoor: ~/r/github/rust-lang/rust ((9fdc5f228e9...))$ rg '#!?\[.*\(bootstrap' -t rust
library/core/src/prelude/v1.rs
78:#[cfg(not(bootstrap))]

library/core/tests/mem.rs
80:#[cfg(not(bootstrap))] // stage 0 doesn't have the fix yet, so the test fails

library/core/src/macros/mod.rs
1517:    #[cfg(not(bootstrap))]

[ignoring stdarch]

library/alloc/src/alloc.rs
408:    #[cfg(bootstrap)]

library/std/src/prelude/v1.rs
62:#[cfg(not(bootstrap))]
pietro@backdoor: ~/r/github/rust-lang/rust ((9fdc5f228e9...))$ 

Are those cfgs intentionally skipped?

@rustbot author

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I believe all four were added after we bumped src/version, or at least removing them led to errors.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #99943) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[pietroalbini]

@bors r+ p=10

[bors]

📌 Commit 01a2a57 has been approved by pietroalbini

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 01a2a57 with merge 338cfd3...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: pietroalbini
Pushing 338cfd3 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (338cfd3): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[3.3%, 5.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	5.0%	[3.5%, 6.6%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[1.6%, 3.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.0%	[3.5%, 6.6%]	6