Add type_name info to [TIMING] log output

[jihiggins]

Adds type_name to the [TIMING] log output:

[TIMING] (bootstrap::compile::Sysroot) Sysroot { compiler: Compiler { stage: 0, host: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None } } } -- 0.020
[TIMING] (bootstrap::builder::Builder::sysroot_libdir::Libdir) Libdir { compiler: Compiler { stage: 0, host: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None } }, target: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None } } -- 0.007

Not sure if that's the best way to format it. Thought about replacing the struct's name with the type_name output, but that feels kind of hacky?

Closes #96060

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Mark-Simulacrum (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[jyn514]

Not sure if that's the best way to format it. Thought about replacing the struct's name with the type_name output, but that feels kind of hacky?

I think to avoid printing the name twice, you can move this formatting underneath formatter.alternate(): https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/fmt/struct.Formatter.html#method.alternate
and then use {:#} instead of {} in the logging.

(edit: we ended up not doing this since it would have required implementing Debug for each and every Step.)

@rustbot label +S-waiting-on-author -S-waiting-on-review +A-rustbuild

[jyn514]

@rustbot ready

[Mark-Simulacrum]

r=me with the two nits

[jyn514]

@jihiggins you can use

@rustbot ready

after making changes to let Mark know it's ready for review.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

Thanks! I've gone ahead and also squashed commits here.

[bors]

📌 Commit 0fea007 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0fea007 with merge fedbe5d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing fedbe5d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (fedbe5d): 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.