Only depend on CFG_VERSION in rustc_interface

[jyn514]

This avoids having to rebuild the whole compiler on each commit when omit-git-hash = false.

cc #76720 - this won't fix it, and I'm not suggesting we turn this on by default, but it will make it less painful for people who do have omit-git-hash on as a workaround.

[rustbot]

r? @cjgillot

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[cjgillot]

The refactor itself looks good.
r=me once #111345 (comment) is resolved;

[est31]

Very nice ❤️

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I think we support custom metadata in the version string via https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/config.example.toml#L557, I'm not quite sure where that goes though. Maybe it doesn't affect this.

[jyn514]

"it doesn't affect this" is exactly the point of this test - it's ensuring that CFG_RELEASE only has the version number, unlike CFG_VERSION which includes the custom metadata.

[jyn514]

r? @est31

[rustbot]

Failed to set assignee to est31: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

[est31]

LGTM

[jyn514]

@bors r=cjgillot,est31

[bors]

📌 Commit d5f2b8e has been approved by cjgillot,est31

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[cjgillot]

@bors r=cjgillot,est31

[bors]

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

• There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Shorten backtraces for queries in ICEs #108938

[bors]

📌 Commit d5f2b8e has been approved by cjgillot,est31

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d5f2b8e with merge c9dc55d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot,est31
Pushing c9dc55d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c9dc55d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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: 640.647s -> 641.544s (0.14%)