Update compiler-builtins test to not clear essential env vars

[jieyouxu]

Noticed in #122580 (comment), the compiler-builtins test failed on Windows for a cargo invocation because necessary env vars TMP and TEMP were cleared by Command::env_clear, causing temp dir eventually used by codegen to fallback to the Windows directory, which will trigger permission errors.

This PR removes the env_clear on the cargo invocation.

r? @saethlin (feel free to reroll, since you authored the test)

try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: test-various

[saethlin]

Do you know why we have that env_clear() in the first place? The test passes fine locally without it, maybe CI has an issue? I think based on the issue report, I'd prefer that we do the inverse strategy of what you're doing here; instead of trying to allow through specific environment variables that matter on specific platforms, instead drop the one (if any) specific variables that cause problems.

[jieyouxu]

Do you know why we have that env_clear() in the first place? The test passes fine locally without it, maybe CI has an issue? I think based on the issue report, I'd prefer that we do the inverse strategy of what you're doing here; instead of trying to allow through specific environment variables that matter on specific platforms, instead drop the one (if any) specific variables that cause problems.

Yeah, I should dig more into why we have issues with that test in the first place. Removing problematic env vars make sense to me.

@rustbot author

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #125628) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[jieyouxu]

@bors try

[jieyouxu]

@bors ping are you home?

[bors]

😪 I'm awake I'm awake

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f31f59e with merge 932d86e...

[jieyouxu]

I'm guessing bors wasn't trying very hard?

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f31f59e with merge d12928a...

[jieyouxu]

Do you know why we have that env_clear() in the first place? The test passes fine locally without it, maybe CI has an issue? I think based on the issue report, I'd prefer that we do the inverse strategy of what you're doing here; instead of trying to allow through specific environment variables that matter on specific platforms, instead drop the one (if any) specific variables that cause problems.

@saethlin do you happen to remember in which CI job that compiler-builtins was failing in?

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: d12928a (d12928a426823eb77a709328f70fb7c4e828e390)

[jieyouxu]

Test successful :ferrisClueless:

[jieyouxu]

We could try to see if this still fails in full build CI?
@bors rollup=iffy (expected to probably fail)

[saethlin]

Seems to pass locally too. Would be neat if this is the only change required.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 2949195 has been approved by saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2949195 with merge 23e040a...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: saethlin
Pushing 23e040a to master...

[saethlin]

Nice

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (23e040a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.7%	[-4.7%, -4.7%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.8%, secondary 4.1%)

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)	1.8%	[1.5%, 2.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.8%	[1.5%, 2.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -5.5%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.5%	[-8.1%, -2.1%]	7
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 668.226s -> 667.724s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 319.05 MiB -> 318.98 MiB (-0.02%)

[saethlin]

Lol, improvements