Re-update to LLVM 19 rc2

[cuviper]

The update in #128677 was accidentally reverted in #128962.

Fixes #129064
r? nikic

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• These commits modify submodules.

[compiler-errors]

Why didn't rustbot alert on modified submodules in that PR? :///

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 5ef895e has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[compiler-errors]

@bors rollup=never (mirroring the original pr)

[dianqk]

Why didn't rustbot alert on modified submodules in that PR? :///

@bors r+

I suspect it's because the force push diff didn't include it: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/11cf5e808b75fdc9db5c54b2420f130a7254219f..70e0f69632591add54bc1e4d625e7bbb9fa02095.diff

[workingjubilee]

Yeah, I'm surprised given that usually rustbot is quite assiduous at whining about that sort of thing.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5ef895e with merge a73bc4a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing a73bc4a to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a73bc4a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

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

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)	0.6%	[0.4%, 1.0%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.2%, 2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.4%, 1.0%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -3.1%, secondary 0.9%)

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)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.9%)

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)	3.7%	[2.1%, 5.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.1%, -1.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 751.393s -> 751.349s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 339.23 MiB -> 337.10 MiB (-0.63%)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Results continue to look like bimodality.