parser/lexer: bump to Unicode 17, use faster unicode-ident

[Marcondiro]

Hello,

Bump the unicode version used by lexer/parser to 17.0.0 by updating:

• unicode-normalization to 0.1.25
• unicode-properties to 0.1.4
• unicode-width to 0.2.2

and by replacing unicode-xid with unicode-ident which is also 6 times faster.
I think it might be worth to run the benchmarks to double check.
(unicode-ident is already in src/tools/tidy/src/deps.rs)

Thanks!

[rustbot]

The list of allowed third-party dependencies may have been modified! You must ensure that any new dependencies have compatible licenses before merging.

cc @davidtwco, @wesleywiser

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
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]

If the Unicode version changes are intentional,
it should also be updated in the reference at
https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/blob/HEAD/src/identifiers.md.

cc @ehuss

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

(Parsing could be affected too).

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 988451c (988451ce73b832a095adca69acf309ce27a2f54d, parent: 23c7bad921fb7163de37ea680bed317deaa03fda)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (988451c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.1%, 0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results (primary 2.6%, secondary 3.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[3.6%, 3.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 473.971s -> 474.835s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 390.89 MiB -> 390.89 MiB (-0.00%)