Update hashbrown dependency to unblock ExtractIf improvements

[dtolnay]

Release notes: https://github.com/rust-lang/hashbrown/releases/tag/v0.15.3

Relevant to me, this release includes rust-lang/hashbrown#616 which unblocks #139764.

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
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

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to 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.

[tgross35]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit f27ba89 has been approved by tgross35

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[dtolnay]

@bors rollup=never

#139764 (comment)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f27ba89 with merge 3559e0a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: tgross35
Pushing 3559e0a to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing d6a325d (parent) -> 3559e0a (this PR)

Test differences

Show 1 test diff

Stage 2

• [run-make] tests/run-make/compressed-debuginfo-zstd: ignore (ignored if LLVM wasn't build with zstd for ELF section compression (we want LLVM/LLD to be built with zstd support)) -> pass (J0)

Job group index

• J0: x86_64-gnu-nopt

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 3559e0ab0e370b98bc3f9e6b688152c47eb9e6c8 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. dist-x86_64-illumos: 14239.3s -> 5543.9s (-61.1%)
2. dist-x86_64-freebsd: 10023.2s -> 4734.5s (-52.8%)
3. dist-x86_64-musl: 15084.3s -> 7165.1s (-52.5%)
4. dist-arm-linux: 10000.7s -> 4830.0s (-51.7%)
5. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 5104.2s -> 2670.0s (-47.7%)
6. aarch64-apple: 7705.9s -> 4040.3s (-47.6%)
7. dist-ohos: 20372.4s -> 10875.7s (-46.6%)
8. x86_64-gnu-debug: 11213.5s -> 6163.2s (-45.0%)
9. dist-android: 4539.7s -> 2553.3s (-43.8%)
10. mingw-check: 2222.6s -> 1264.2s (-43.1%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3559e0a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.2%, -0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	5
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-1.2%, 3.0%]	3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.3%, secondary -4.3%)

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)	1.8%	[0.4%, 6.7%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-6.1%, -0.4%]	22
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-4.3%, -4.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-6.1%, 6.7%]	31

Cycles

Results (primary 0.3%)

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)	0.7%	[0.4%, 3.0%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.9%, -0.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-0.9%, 3.0%]	19

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%)

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

Bootstrap: 768.719s -> 769.569s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 365.55 MiB -> 365.54 MiB (-0.00%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Not a real regression, dropping label. Newly added benchmark, that has some natural bimodality.