Upgrade object, addr2line, and unwinding in the standard library

[tgross35]

Object:

0.37.0 is a semver-breaking release but the only breakage is in elf::R_RISCV_GNU_* and pe::IMAGE_WEAK_EXTERN_* constants, as well as Mach-O dyld. This API is not used by std, so we should be fine to upgrade.

This new version also includes functionality for parsing Wasm object files that we may eventually like to make use of.

Changelog: https://github.com/gimli-rs/object/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#0370

Addr2line:

0.25.0 is a breaking change only because it upgrades the gimli version. It also includes a change to the compiler-builtins dependency that helps with 1.

Changelog: https://github.com/gimli-rs/addr2line/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#0250-20250611

[rustbot]

r? @joboet

rustbot has assigned @joboet.
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]

These commits modify the library/Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to library/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.

[tgross35]

Jonas is afk for a little while

r? libs

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 68609e4 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kobzol]

@rust-timer build e8dfa76

(For #142443)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e8dfa76): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	14
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.4%]	6

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%, secondary 0.7%)

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.1%	[-5.1%, -5.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-5.1%, 1.9%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 6.9%)

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)	6.9%	[6.9%, 6.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.4%, secondary 0.8%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.1%]	26
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.4%, 1.1%]	83
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.1%]	26

Bootstrap: 755.964s -> 689.059s (-8.85%)
Artifact size: 372.26 MiB -> 372.30 MiB (0.01%)

[tgross35]

None of the changelogs for the upgrades look especially perf-relevant, I would guess that maybe object, addr2line, or gimli is handling some more data somewhere. Cc @philipc in case you have any easy ideas, but I think the regression here is tiny enough to accept without further investigation.

[Kobzol]

We usually don't do anything about small regressions from dep updates, it's too hard to track down.

[philipc]

I'm not familiar with rust's benchmarking. What are the regressed tests measuring? It looks like some of them are doc and check which sounds like things unrelated to the functionality of these deps. Is the addition of code in these deps enough to affect these measurements, even if that code is unused?

[Kobzol]

The updated code affects stdlib, which is used by the compiled rustc itself, so it always has the potential of affecting things. But as I posted above, I don't think that we need to investigate further here.