feat: Use annotate-snippets by default on nightly

[Muscraft]

This PR switches the default renderer to use annotate-snippets on nightly, but does not affect stable. This is part of the ongoing effort to use annotate-snippets to render all diagnostics.

MCP

Note: This contains the test change from #148004, without the change to the default emitter.

#59346
rust-lang/rust-project-goals#123

r? @davidtwco

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Let's test perf outright :)

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 9642289 (9642289ca0cc666c0a012091ea4605836db294e4, parent: 9ea8d67cc60e88ad6fffbf299a454c44227e001c)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9642289): 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)	0.6%	[0.3%, 0.9%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.1%]	9
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 0.9%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (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)	3.2%	[2.4%, 4.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (secondary -5.4%)

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)	-5.4%	[-5.4%, -5.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 474.628s -> 473.869s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 390.61 MiB -> 390.65 MiB (0.01%)

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 9243928 with merge 0b5418b...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[Zalathar]

Runner flaked out.

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 9243928 with merge c5e283b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: estebank
Pushing c5e283b to master...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 642c19b (parent) -> c5e283b (this PR)

Test differences

Show 5 test diffs

Stage 2

• [crashes] tests/crashes/131762.rs: pass -> ignore (ignored if rustc wasn't built with debug assertions) (J0)

Additionally, 4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

• J0: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, test-various, x86_64-gnu-gcc

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard c5e283b0d209ee6f7cd1a8cbc1974927c547f3e6 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. aarch64-apple: 7306.7s -> 10732.4s (+46.9%)
2. dist-android: 1133.5s -> 1461.1s (+28.9%)
3. dist-x86_64-apple: 7315.2s -> 9044.7s (+23.6%)
4. dist-apple-various: 3861.8s -> 4520.2s (+17.0%)
5. dist-ohos-x86_64: 4746.2s -> 4093.6s (-13.7%)
6. pr-check-1: 1946.7s -> 1689.0s (-13.2%)
7. i686-gnu-1: 8810.8s -> 7757.6s (-12.0%)
8. dist-x86_64-windows-gnullvm: 5358.8s -> 4722.9s (-11.9%)
9. x86_64-gnu-aux: 6230.3s -> 6899.6s (+10.7%)
10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2: 6054.3s -> 5462.6s (-9.8%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c5e283b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	0.8%	[0.3%, 2.9%]	21
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 0.6%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[0.3%, 2.9%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 2.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.9%	[1.9%, 1.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[-1.6%, 1.9%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.8%)

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)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 1.1%, 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)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1

Bootstrap: 474.467s -> 475.114s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 390.76 MiB -> 390.78 MiB (0.00%)

[Kobzol]

(Just a procedural note that this was r+-ed before the MCP was finished on rust-lang/compiler-team#937). The MCP just finished, a few hours after the PR has landed, and there were AFAIK no further concerns, so it's not a big deal in any way. Just wanted to make it be known :)

[estebank]

@Kobzol My bad. I somehow misread the MCP as accepted when it wasn't (yet).