Partial stabilisation of c_unwind

[nbdd0121]

The stabilisation report is at #74990 (comment)

cc @rust-lang/wg-ffi-unwind

[rustbot]

r? @nagisa

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[nagisa]

This is still waiting for the FCP to begin on the linked tracking issue. Relabeling as such.

[nagisa]

The code changes in the compiler seem correct to me.

[pnkfelix]

This is still waiting for the FCP to begin on the linked tracking issue.

This is now waiting on @nikomatsakis to resolve their concern regarding the c-unwind docs. @nikomatsakis may choose to resolve their concern, in which case this will go into FCP, or they may choose to raise questions about those docs with the rest of T-lang team (as suggested by Eric Huss on Zulip)

@rustbot label: -I-lang-nominated

[nbdd0121]

FCP is now completed

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-team

[nagisa]

r=me, see comment, up to you if you think it is worth addressing.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #109770) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[nbdd0121]

@nagisa this is pending approval (I don't have review permission)

[joshtriplett]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 0ed8428137c52e3fbc9ae470dc5bd00985ee0957 has been approved by joshtriplett

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #110643) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[nbdd0121]

Rebased

[tmandry]

@bors r=joshtriplett

[bors]

📌 Commit c9a0be2 has been approved by joshtriplett

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c9a0be2 with merge 1cb6357...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: joshtriplett
Pushing 1cb6357 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1cb6357): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.3%, -1.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	3.1%	[1.3%, 5.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 655.389s -> 655.55s (0.02%)

[BatmanAoD]

Thanks @tmandry and @joshtriplett !