Strip debuginfo from rustc-main and rustdoc

[clubby789]

r? @Kobzol
Split from #134690

[clubby789]

I wonder if for rustc we should just strip unconditionally, because that binary really contains almost no code

I think it's best if we only strip rustc-main when debuginfo is off - dist is the only place it really matters, and if someone needs to debug jemalloc inside rustc-main then we shouldn't confuse them by removing their requested debuginfo

[Kobzol]

Ok, fair enough! Let's check if this still has the intended artifact size wins.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e5f6765 with merge 48eebcc...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 48eebcc (48eebccf201050ba448b73397c277b5258fcf350)

[clubby789]

$ ls -lh $(rustc --print sysroot)/bin/{rustc,rustdoc}
-rwxr-xr-x 1 jamie jamie 2.0M Dec  6 09:32 ~/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/rustc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 jamie jamie  16M Dec  6 09:32 ~/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/rustdoc
$ ls -lh $(rustc +48eebccf201050ba448b73397c277b5258fcf350 --print sysroot)/bin/{rustc,rustdoc}
-rwxr-xr-x 1 jamie jamie 383K Dec 27 08:59 ~/.rustup/toolchains/48eebccf201050ba448b73397c277b5258fcf350/bin/rustc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 jamie jamie  12M Dec 27 08:59 ~/.rustup/toolchains/48eebccf201050ba448b73397c277b5258fcf350/bin/rustdoc

[Kobzol]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e5f6765 has been approved by Kobzol

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (48eebcc): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -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
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.6%, secondary 2.6%)

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.6%)

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)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 763.9s -> 764.266s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 330.55 MiB -> 325.11 MiB (-1.65%)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit e5f6765 with merge e5f0d6f...