rustc_target: introduce Architecture

[tamird]

Improve type safety by using an enum rather than strings.

[rustbot]

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

Some changes occurred in cfg and check-cfg configuration

cc @Urgau

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa

cc @WaffleLapkin

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

[rustbot]

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
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

[nnethercote]

This seems like a good change, but I think it's large enough that it should have an MCP, meeting the criteria of "Significant internal refactorings/changes" -- it's a simple change, but one that touches a lot of files.

[tamird]

This seems like a good change, but I think it's large enough that it should have an MCP, meeting the criteria of "Significant internal refactorings/changes" -- it's a simple change, but one that touches a lot of files.

Done: rust-lang/compiler-team#926.

[Urgau]

I'm curious if this has any performance impact, let's see.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 3a048fa (3a048fab4921cf40ac8c01ca813c3fde6e3a2caa, parent: e100792918c8bd9e0cb830f96fc9b171e8892fa1)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3a048fa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

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.

@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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.8%, 0.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.2%	[-0.2%, -0.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.1%, secondary 1.1%)

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)	1.8%	[1.0%, 3.6%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.7%, -1.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.3%	[-1.4%, -1.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.7%, -1.6%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 0.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Binary size

Results (secondary -0.0%)

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
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 473.51s -> 474.979s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 388.11 MiB -> 388.13 MiB (0.01%)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #147692) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.