Update bootstrap compiler and rustfmt

[bjorn3]

The rustfmt version we previously used formats things differently from what the latest nightly rustfmt does. This causes issues for subtrees that get formatted both in-tree and in their own repo. Updating the rustfmt used in-tree solves those issues. Also bumped the bootstrap compiler as the stage0 update command always updates both at the same
time.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

rustbot has assigned @oli-obk.
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

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 1fcae03 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 1fcae03 with merge 124cc92...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 124cc92 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (124cc92): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.3%)

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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary -2.4%)

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)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.631s -> 779.273s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 329.11 MiB -> 329.09 MiB (-0.01%)

[lqd]

syn is bimodal rn @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged