Bump to 1.72.0

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 78acd5d has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc @jyn514 @chenyukang -- reverting #111538 for now, it breaks our ability to do bumps (added a note to the revert commit message). Happy to see that re-land but we need to proceed with the release right now.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 0809338 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jyn514]

that's fine to revert for now, yeah.

This breaks our ability to bump the src/version where we're bootstrapping with an older compiler
than usual (according to version number)

ah hmm, I guess the problem is that for a ~week we're building 1.72 nightly with 1.70 beta? I wonder if we could have some field in config.toml that explicitly opts in to allowing it to be 2 versions apart instead of 1, and disable it once we bump to 1.71 beta.

anyway, we can worry about that after this merges.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0809338 with merge 9291627...

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Well, it would be something like a change in defaults during the period at least - which feels hacky. I'm not sure it adds enough value for the hassle.

I guess we could try to only do this when building from source tarballs or something like that, if I understood the original issue correctly, that should mitigate most of the pain. Building in-tree with stage0.json compilers isn't really a case where you have a problem. (Though there's not a trivial conditional, because it's totally valid to build the nightly artifacts from the source tarballs during this week).

[jyn514]

ah! that's a great point, we can just turn this check off altogether when rustc is unset and we're using stage0.json, i think that should help all the cases of the original issue without adding a maintenance burden :)

[chenyukang]

I will add a fix to the original PR.

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 9291627 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9291627): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1

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)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.8%	[-3.2%, -2.4%]	2
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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 646.258s -> 645.492s (-0.12%)