Fix parallel rustc not being reproducible due to unstable sorts of items

[ywxt]

Currently, A tuple (DefId, SymbolName) is used to determine the order of items in the final binary. However DefId is expected as non-deterministic, which leads to some not reproducible issues under parallel compilation.

Here we use (Span, SymbolName) to replace (DefId, SymbolName) and make them sorted.

This PR is purposed to fix #140425, but seemly works on #140413 too.

This behavior hasn't added into any test until we have a test suit for the parallel frontend. (See #143953)

Related discussion: Zulip #144576

Update #113349

r? @SparrowLii

[rustbot]

r? @saethlin

rustbot has assigned @saethlin.
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

[SparrowLii]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7f73e8b with merge 8bf70d1…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 8bf70d1 (8bf70d10cec2c1fed04744fed1d432536ca5f957, parent: e1b9081e699065badfc1a9419ec9566e5c8615c4)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8bf70d1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.9%	[0.1%, 61.1%]	44
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 1.2%]	24
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[-0.2%, 61.1%]	45

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.4%, secondary 1.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[0.8%, 6.4%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[3.1%, 3.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.8%	[-1.8%, -1.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.4%	[0.8%, 6.4%]	3

Cycles

Results (primary 24.6%, secondary -0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	24.6%	[2.0%, 58.6%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.8%	[-3.8%, -3.8%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	24.6%	[2.0%, 58.6%]	3

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 468.82s -> 467.885s (-0.20%)
Artifact size: 376.96 MiB -> 377.02 MiB (0.02%)