Allow injecting a profiler runtime into #![no_core] crates

[Zalathar]

An alternative to #133300, allowing -Cinstrument-coverage to be used with -Zbuild-std.

The incompatibility between profiler_builtins and #![no_core] crates appears to have been caused by profiler_builtins depending on core, and therefore conflicting with core (or minicore).

But that's a false dependency, because the profiler doesn't contain any actual Rust code. So we can just mark the profiler itself as #![no_core], and remove the incompatibility error.

---

For context, the error was originally added by #79958.

[rustbot]

r? @Nadrieril

rustbot has assigned @Nadrieril.
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

[Zalathar]

cc @Enselic @jieyouxu

[jieyouxu]

I can't say I'm too familiar with profiler_builtins injection either, but cutting off the unnecessary dependency to core seems like a less fragile option than only skipping the profiler_builtins injection when building an .rlib.

[rustbot]

These commits modify the library/Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to library/Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[Zalathar]

r? compiler

It's possible to write a run-make test that actually runs cargo with -Zbuild-std and RUSTFLAGS="-Cinstrument-coverage", but it's a bit fiddly and takes 20+ seconds to run (since it builds its own libraries), so I'm not sure whether it's worth adding.

[jieyouxu]

r? jieyouxu

[jieyouxu]

Thanks, this seems reasonable to me, just one nit. You can r=me with the nit.

[jieyouxu]

@rustbot author

[jieyouxu]

@bors rollup=never (profiler runtime setup modifications)

[Zalathar]

Addressed review feedback (diff).

@bors r=jieyouxu

[bors]

📌 Commit 6798eca has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6798eca with merge c1ad384...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[jieyouxu]

@bors retry (failed to pay msvc taxes)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6798eca with merge 39cb338...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 39cb338 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (39cb338): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.6%, secondary -0.0%)

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)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 4.2%)

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)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.2%	[4.2%, 4.2%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 794.092s -> 793.948s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 336.11 MiB -> 336.16 MiB (0.01%)