Bump to 1.67.0

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

[rustbot]

Could not determine reviewer from Mark-Simulacrum.

[rustbot]

@Mark-Simulacrum: no appropriate reviewer found, use r? to override

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=never p=10

[bors]

📌 Commit 4cc03c1 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 4cc03c1 with merge 69810e38352200a12413b252cc6db4f0796e160b...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[Mark-Simulacrum]

It looks like we're failing here because the version bump caused us to need a rebuild of LLVM for all the builders that are caching it (as of #99967). Normally that's not a problem, but python3 "$X_PY" test --stage 2 src/tools/miri --target i686-pc-windows-msvc currently at least is breaking on that. It seems possible we don't actually need an LLVM build here and the check/download of it is just too eager, but that will need to be fixed in a follow-up PR.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ p=5

[bors]

📌 Commit b0db70e has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b0db70e with merge 15ee24a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 15ee24a to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (15ee24a): 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)	1.3%	[1.2%, 1.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[0.5%, 4.1%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.2%, 1.4%]	2

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)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1

Cycles

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)	2.4%	[2.1%, 2.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[nnethercote]

These "regressions" are just noise, the relevant benchmarks have been noisy lately.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged