Bump compiler cc to 1.2.5

[jieyouxu]

• cc 1.2.4 contains a fix to address rustc uses wrong build tools when compiling from MSVC #133794. See https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs/releases/tag/cc-v1.2.4.
• cc 1.2.5 contains a fix to also check linking when testing if certain compiler flags are supported, which fixed an issue that was causing previous compiler cc bumps to fail. See https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs/releases/tag/cc-v1.2.5.

Supersedes #134419.
Fixes #133794.

r? @clubby789

[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.

[clubby789]

I verified building dist-x86_64-linux with this patch applied so r=me when green

[jieyouxu]

I reviewed rust-lang/cc-rs#1322, which seems reasonable to me.

[jieyouxu]

Nominating for beta-backport to address #133794 for beta builds (which is already on stable 1.83.0, but can still be annoying on beta) as it breaks cross-builds from msvc specifically with MSBuild to other targets.

@rustbot label +beta-nominated

[jieyouxu]

PR CI is green. @clubby789 reviewed the bump itself, I re-reviewed the cc 1.2.5 changes. Not rolling up as there may be ferris-knows-what kind of build failures, typical of cc bumps.
@bors r=clubby789,jieyouxu rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 3775d22 has been approved by clubby789,jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jieyouxu]

May the CI pass in one go

[apiraino]

Beta backport accepted as per compiler team on Zulip. A backport PR will be authored by the release team at the end of the current development cycle.

@rustbot label +beta-accepted

[DianQK]

@bors p=6 (beta)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 3775d22 with merge 4c40c89...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: clubby789,jieyouxu
Pushing 4c40c89 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4c40c89): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-7.6%, -0.1%]	244
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.7%	[-1.4%, -0.1%]	196
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-7.6%, -0.1%]	244

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -3.6%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -1.4%, secondary -2.0%)

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)	6.4%	[6.4%, 6.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-9.5%, -0.7%]	41
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.4%, -1.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.4%	[-9.5%, 6.4%]	42

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 766.596s -> 760.428s (-0.80%)
Artifact size: 330.18 MiB -> 330.62 MiB (0.13%)

[Kobzol]

I think that this is a real win (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/247081-t-compiler.2Fperformance/topic/sus.20perf.20results/near/490368470). I would guess that it was caused by rust-lang/cc-rs#1279.