Migrate inaccessible-temp-dir, output-with-hyphens and issue-10971-temps-dir run-make tests to rmake

[Oneirical]

Part of #121876 and the associated Google Summer of Code project.

try-job: x86_64-msvc

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
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

[rustbot]

This PR modifies tests/run-make/. If this PR is trying to port a Makefile
run-make test to use rmake.rs, please update the
run-make port tracking issue
so we can track our progress. You can either modify the tracking issue
directly, or you can comment on the tracking issue and link this PR.

cc @jieyouxu

[Kobzol]

Left one more question, otherwise LGTM.

[Kobzol]

r? @Kobzol

[rustbot]

The run-make-support library was changed

cc @jieyouxu

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 03f19d6 with merge c2932aa...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing c2932aa to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c2932aa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

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

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)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.5%)

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)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -2.0%, secondary -2.5%)

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)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.3%	[-6.0%, -3.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 670.994s -> 671.107s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 320.50 MiB -> 320.52 MiB (0.00%)

[Kobzol]

This has to be noise, this PR only modified tests.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged