Bump stage0 to beta-2024-09-22 and rustfmt to nightly-2024-09-22

[compiler-errors]

I'm doing this to apply the changes to version sorting (rust-lang/rustfmt#6284) that have occurred since rustfmt last upgraded (and a few other miscellaneous changes, like changes to expression overflowing: rust-lang/rustfmt#6260). Eagerly updating rustfmt and formatting-the-world will ideally move some of the pressure off of the beta bump which will happen at the beginning of the next release cycle.

You can verify this is correct by checking out the changes, reverting the last commit, reapplying them, and diffing the changes:

git fetch git@github.com:compiler-errors/rust.git bump
git checkout -b bump FETCH_HEAD
git reset --hard HEAD~5
./x.py fmt --all
git diff FETCH_HEAD
# ignore the changes to stage0, and rustfmt.toml,
# and test file changes in rustdoc-js-std, run-make.

Or just take my word for it? Up to the reviewer.

r? release

[compiler-errors]

r? cuviper (or reassign; not totally sure who's responsible for reviewing stage0 bumps!)

[compiler-errors]

@bors p=10 since it's very bitrotty

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit c682aa1 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[compiler-errors]

Sorting probably changed something with rustdoc-js :( Let me bless that really quick, I guess.

@bors r-

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (66b0b29): 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 (primary -0.5%, secondary -0.1%)

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)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-3.0%, 2.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -0.5%, secondary -2.9%)

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)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-4.2%, -1.6%]	13
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 770.325s -> 770.556s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 341.57 MiB -> 341.54 MiB (-0.01%)

[Kobzol]

This was a pretty massive change, maybe we should add it to git blame ignore?

[compiler-errors]

Yep definitely. That was gonna be my follow-up once it lands, but it's 03:10 here. It would be very cool if you put up a PR, but if you don't, then I can do it in the morning.

[Kobzol]

#130736