change rlib format to distinguish native dependencies

[belovdv]

Another one method to solve problem mentioned in #99429.

Changed .rlib format, it contains all bundled native libraries as archieves.
At link time rlib is unpacked and native dependencies linked separately.
New behavior hidden under separate_native_rlib_dependencies flag.

[rust-highfive]

r? @davidtwco

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

[petrochenkov]

r? @petrochenkov

[belovdv]

@rustbot ready

[belovdv]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 4f93a313f477731549ebfcabd2fc932ed15f229f has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[belovdv]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 5bf9c7b has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r- rollup=never
failed in a rollup #101326

[rustbot]

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @JohnTitor, @estebank, @TaKO8Ki

[belovdv]

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit ffa8359 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 1000. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit ffa8359 with merge 9da4644...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 9da4644 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9da4644): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-3.5%, -1.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	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.

	mean1	range	count2
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1

Footnotes

1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩ ↩²

2. number of relevant changes ↩ ↩²