Update to LLVM 22.1.0-rc3

[nikic]

Update to LLVM 22.1.0-rc3, plus a cherry-pick of llvm/llvm-project#179631 which is still pending backport upstream.

Fixes #151926.
Fixes #151832.
Fixes #151818.
Fixes #151807.
Fixes #t-compiler/help > Inlining causing function to get replace with TRAP.

Should also address #131745, but we should verify that separately.

[rustbot]

r? @cuviper

rustbot has assigned @cuviper.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: @cuviper

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• Some commits in this PR modify submodules.

  If this was not intentional, see I changed a submodule on accident in the rustc dev guide.

[dianqk]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 1c45618 has been approved by dianqk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[tgross35]

@bors p=5

I think submodule updates can always get a priority bump. Also this fixes some pretty noticeable regressions.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: dianqk
Duration: 5h 9m 3s
Pushing 7057231 to main...

[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 7dc2e92 (parent) -> 7057231 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 5 test diffs

Stage 2

• [run-make] tests/run-make/compressed-debuginfo-zstd: pass -> ignore (ignored if LLVM wasn't build with zstd for ELF section compression or LLVM is not the default codegen backend) (J0)

Additionally, 4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: x86_64-gnu-nopt

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 7057231bd78d6c7893f905ea1832365d4c5efe17 --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. pr-check-1: 27m 6s -> 56m 8s (+107.1%)
2. dist-arm-linux-musl: 1h 32m -> 3h 3m (+98.2%)
3. dist-apple-various: 1h 35m -> 2h 57m (+86.5%)
4. dist-x86_64-solaris: 1h 35m -> 2h 54m (+82.4%)
5. x86_64-gnu-debug: 1h 44m -> 3h 7m (+78.9%)
6. dist-x86_64-apple: 2h 50m -> 5h 1m (+77.0%)
7. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 46m 37s -> 1h 21m (+74.4%)
8. dist-x86_64-illumos: 1h 47m -> 3h 6m (+73.8%)
9. dist-sparcv9-solaris: 1h 31m -> 2h 38m (+72.4%)
10. pr-check-2: 39m 7s -> 1h 6m (+70.6%)

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 (7057231): 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

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	10
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 2.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[4.2%, 5.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.3%, -1.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.4%	[2.2%, 8.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.2%	[-11.5%, -3.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 475.749s -> 476.438s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 398.02 MiB -> 397.88 MiB (-0.03%)