Save/restore more items in cache with incremental compilation

[pacak]

Right now they don't play very well together, consider a simple example:

$ export RUSTFLAGS="--emit asm"
$ cargo new --lib foo
     Created library `foo` package
$ cargo build -q
$ touch src/lib.rs
$ cargo build
error: could not copy 
  "/path/to/foo/target/debug/deps/foo-e307cc7fa7b6d64f.4qbzn9k8mosu50a5.rcgu.s" 
  to "/path/to/foo/target/debug/deps/foo-e307cc7fa7b6d64f.s": 
  No such file or directory (os error 2)

Touch triggers the rebuild, incremental compilation detects no changes (yay) and everything explodes while trying to copy files were they should go.

This pull request fixes it by copying and restoring more files in the incremental compilation cache

Fixes #89149
Fixes #88829

Related: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/interaction-between-incremental-compilation-and-emit/20551

[rustbot]

r? @Nadrieril

rustbot has assigned @Nadrieril.
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]

Some changes occurred in run-make tests.

cc @jieyouxu

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

[Nadrieril]

r? compiler

[fmease]

Thanks! Overall looks good. I have a couple of minor nitpicks

[jieyouxu]

The run-make test and support library changes look good to me, just left some minor nits 👍

[pacak]

🎉

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 691e953 with merge a0e26ff...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a0e26ff (a0e26ff7cff359f39a275ec3ef2b56a070a4d94d)

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a0e26ff (a0e26ff7cff359f39a275ec3ef2b56a070a4d94d)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a0e26ff): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

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: 666.761s -> 669.173s (0.36%)
Artifact size: 318.27 MiB -> 318.28 MiB (0.00%)

[pacak]

@rustbot ready

[fmease]

Thanks!

@bors r=fmease,jieyouxu

[bors]

📌 Commit 691e953 has been approved by fmease,jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 691e953 with merge fc1a4c5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fmease,jieyouxu
Pushing fc1a4c5 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fc1a4c5): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.6%, -3.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-4.3%, -0.7%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.6%, -3.5%]	2

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: 667.68s -> 667.899s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 318.27 MiB -> 318.21 MiB (-0.02%)