std: upgrade addr2line, object, miniz_oxide

[cuviper]

The addr2line upgrade also upgrades gimli, and we need a new
unwinding to align on that. No code changes are required.

See also rust-lang/backtrace-rs#765, but since std uses that as a
#[path] mod backtrace_rs, we don't need to wait for the crate update.

[rustbot]

r? @Darksonn

rustbot has assigned @Darksonn.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: @ChrisDenton, libs
• @ChrisDenton, libs expanded to 13 candidates
• Random selection from 6 candidates

[Darksonn]

Seems ok to me.

@bors r+

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 08bda6d has been approved by Darksonn

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[JonathanBrouwer]

@rust-timer build ceadccd

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (ceadccd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@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)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.2%, 0.5%]	29
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.8%	[-0.8%, -0.7%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-4.9%, -0.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, 0.6%]	11

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.3%, secondary 0.5%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.4%	[1.2%, 9.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-4.5%, -4.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.3%	[3.3%, 3.3%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -2.2%, secondary -0.9%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.5%	[2.3%, 4.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.9%, -2.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.4%, secondary -0.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.1%]	8
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-0.7%, -0.6%]	27
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.7%, -0.1%]	8

Bootstrap: 490.55s -> 490.311s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 390.05 MiB -> 389.46 MiB (-0.15%)

[JonathanBrouwer]

That's quite a significant perf regression, any idea what caused it?

[Darksonn]

Yeah, perhaps we should revert?

[JonathanBrouwer]

Revert posted here: #159373

[Kobzol]

There are some small icount doc regressions, but otherwise this looks fine, since it's a dependency upgrade. I don't think that this even needs a revert.

[cuviper]

It's a bit curious that this slowed down, but that could just be that the new dependencies are a little larger, so there's more metadata etc. I don't think it's enough to worry about or revert.