opt-dist: fix deprecated BOLT -icf=1 option

[klensy]

Replaced deprecated -icf=1 BOLT option.

Spotted in recent CI run (https://github.com/rust-lang-ci/rust/actions/runs/15080898417/job/42397253162):

BOLT-WARNING: specifying numeric value "1" for option -icf is deprecated

Change was added in llvm/llvm-project#116275

Btw, now there also exist new option -icf=safe, will be nice to try it too.

[rustbot]

r? @Kobzol

rustbot has assigned @Kobzol.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/opt-dist

cc @Kobzol

[Kobzol]

Thanks for spotting that! Well, safe is essentially a "less powerful" version of ICF. I seem to remember that safe was pretty much the same as none for us the last time we tried it, and since all has been working fine so far (or at least I don't recall any issues), I would just keep using that.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 40e3b80 with merge eefe0f4...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: eefe0f4 (eefe0f43e952e5ec8a9b76400b4c2913f9fbf909)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (eefe0f4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

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.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@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)	0.4%	[0.1%, 1.0%]	3
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	36
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.1%, -0.0%]	45
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, 1.0%]	39

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.7%, secondary 4.5%)

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)	3.7%	[0.8%, 6.7%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[0.6%, 8.7%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.7%	[0.8%, 6.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.4%)

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)	2.3%	[1.0%, 3.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.9%	[-4.1%, -3.8%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 774.349s -> 776.077s (0.22%)
Artifact size: 365.45 MiB -> 365.35 MiB (-0.03%)