Support AIX-style archive type

[ecnelises]

Reading facility of AIX big archive has been supported by object since 0.30.0.

Writing facility of AIX big archive has already been supported by ar_archive_writer, but we need to bump the version to support the new archive type enum.

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• These commits modify submodules.

[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

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106646) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[ecnelises]

Ah, it fails because LLVM 13 does not have support for K_AIXBIG yet. Should I guard it with 'LLVM >= 14' in FFI wrapper?

[bjorn3]

You can wait for #107573 which will bump the minimum supported LLVM version to 14.

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Random changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.
This was probably unintentional and should be reverted before this PR is merged.

If this was intentional then you can ignore this comment.

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[pnkfelix]

Discussed in this week's triage meeting. We think the PR author needs to update the tests to pass CI.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-author -S-waiting-on-review

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #109133) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bjorn3]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 7c8c9cf has been approved by bjorn3

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7c8c9cf with merge 39c6804...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: bjorn3
Pushing 39c6804 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (39c6804): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[1.1%, 3.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	6

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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.4%	[-4.4%, -4.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[ecnelises]

Since this PR doesn't have actually change to code flow, the regression should come from something newly imported into std?

[workingjubilee]

Yeah, the triage here is effectively "wow, the tests seem like they've gotten a lot more variance lately, because this sure as heck shouldn't have actually changed anything worth writing home about. Maaayyybe it perturbed some of std's code?".

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged