Drop time dependency from bootstrap

[Mark-Simulacrum]

This was only used for the inclusion of 'current' dates into our manpages, but
it is not clear that this is practically necessary. The manpage is essentially
never updated, and so we can likely afford to keep a manual date in these files.
It also seems possible to just omit it, but that may cause other tools trouble,
so avoid doing that for now.

This is largely done to reduce bootstrap complexity; the time crate is not particularly
small and in #92480 would have started pulling in num-threads, which does runtime
thread count detection. I would prefer to avoid that, so filing this to just drop the nearly
unused dependency entirely.

r? @pietroalbini

[emilyalbini]

Sounds good.

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 2f23624 has been approved by pietroalbini

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors rollup

[klensy]

Looks like #92480 (comment) hitted here too

[jhpratt]

While I support this change (I didn't even know rustc had a manpage), I'd like to note that the num_threads dependency is only required because std is unsound 🙂 I'll actually go so far as to say this should happen, as the manpage shouldn't show the current(ish) date when they're not actually current.

[m-ou-se]

Rollup #93736 failed on this PR with:

error[E0432]: unresolved import `winapi::um::timezoneapi`
   --> src\bootstrap\bin/rustc.rs:236:48
    |
236 |     use winapi::um::{processthreadsapi, psapi, timezoneapi};
    |                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^ no `timezoneapi` in `um`

Looks like the time dependency was the only thing enabling the timezoneapi feature of winapi that boostrap/bin/rustc.rs needs.

[m-ou-se]

@bors r-

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

Should be fixed.

[bors]

📌 Commit 2a8c750 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 2a8c750 with merge 05d1652...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 05d1652 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (05d1652): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results.

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression