add tool::CargoClippy and tool::Cargofmt binary to target sysroot

[onur-ozkan]

When running x build clippy, we expect stage1-tool-bin/cargo-clippy and stage2/bin/cargo-clippy to be the same, but they aren't. This happens because tool::CargoClippy doesn't place its binary in the stage2 directory. As a result, stage1-tool-bin/cargo-clippy comes from tool::CargoClippy, while stage2/bin/cargo-clippy comes from tool::Cargo. Same applies for tool::Cargofmt.

This PR fixes the issue by adding tool::CargoClippy and tool::Cargofmt binaries to the expected sysroot and makes sure both directories share the same binary.

To test this, run x build --stage 2 compiler clippy rustfmt, link the stage2 sysroot with rustup, and then call cargo +stage2 fmt and cargo +stage2 clippy on any rust project (it wouldn't work without this PR).

[onur-ozkan]

r? bootstrap

[onur-ozkan]

@rustbot author

[onur-ozkan]

@rustbot ready

[jieyouxu]

I tried the changes locally and can confirm I can reproduce that cargo-fmt and cargo-clippy are present in stage2 sysroot, and that they are functional.

Thanks for the fix!

[jieyouxu]

How did I end up with two comments 🤔 Anyway

@bors r+ rollup=never (tool build changes)

[bors]

📌 Commit f677bab has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kobzol]

Interesting, did it cause the following behavior? When I use nightly and look at the version of the two binaries, they seem to be different:

~/.ru/to/nightly/bin$ ./cargo-fmt --version
rustfmt 1.8.0-stable (4d91de4e48 2025-02-17)
~/.ru/to/nightly/bin$ ./rustfmt --version
rustfmt 1.8.0-nightly (617aad8c2e 2025-02-24)

[jieyouxu]

Hm, should double check.
@bors r-

[jieyouxu]

Wait no, not the changes in this PR (that I'm fairly sure is correct).

@bors r+

[Kobzol]

To clarify, this was happening with the previous nightly before this PR, I was just wondering whether 1) it is something that should be fixed 2) this PR fixes it :)

[bors]

📌 Commit f677bab has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[jieyouxu]

To clarify, this was happening with the previous nightly before this PR, I was just wondering whether 1) it is something that should be fixed 2) this PR fixes it :)

Can you file this separately to track it (in case this PR doesn't fix it)? I'm not at PC atm.

[Kobzol]

#137666

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f677bab with merge a96fa31...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing a96fa31 to master...

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

gh pr comment ${HEAD_PR} -F output.log
shell: /usr/bin/bash -e {0}
##[endgroup]
fatal: ambiguous argument 'HEAD^1': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
##[error]Process completed with exit code 128.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a96fa31): 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 -5.7%)

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)	-5.7%	[-5.7%, -5.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-5.7%	[-5.7%, -5.7%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	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: 764.414s -> 765.189s (0.10%)
Artifact size: 362.00 MiB -> 362.04 MiB (0.01%)