CI: merge mingw test CI jobs

[Kobzol]

Same as #112633, but for mingw. From the logs it looks like the runner spends 40 minutes compiling rustc, and then 10/20 minutes running tests. It seems wasteful to split that into two jobs.

CI run: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/5275702134/jobs/9541479343?pr=112645

r? @jyn514

[jyn514]

don't have time for reviews.

r? infra-ci

[Kobzol]

I applied jyn's suggestion to test both entrypoints (x and bootstrap.py).

r? @pietroalbini

[Kobzol]

Converting to draft until #112668 is resolved.

[Kobzol]

Performed the same change as in #112668, testing if it works on PR.

[Kobzol]

Good, tests now pass.

@rustbot ready

[pietroalbini]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f3a4cf1 has been approved by pietroalbini

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f3a4cf1 with merge 2d0aa57...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: pietroalbini
Pushing 2d0aa57 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2d0aa57): 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)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.6%, 0.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	3

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 656.699s -> 657.452s (0.11%)

[nnethercote]

This must be noise, Linux wasn't affected.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged