[NO-TICKET] Upgrade libdatadog dependency to version 30.0.0

[ivoanjo]

What does this PR do?

This PR bumps the libdatadog dependency from version 29.0.0.1.0 to 30.0.0.1.0.

Motivation:

Fix #5508

Change log entry

Yes. Upgrade libdatadog dependency to version 30.0.0 and fix #5508 failure to initialize transport in profiling

Additional Notes:

The valgrind issue was a bit of a curve-ball, but @yannham is going to change the code to not use rustix and thus not trigger the problem.

How to test the change?

Green CI is good, as usual.

I've manually tested that the issue from #5508 is gone; I'm not sure it's worth adding a test for it on the dd-trace-rb side since a) we've added a test on the libdatadog side and the regression was fully there; and b) it's awkward to run and maintain since it needs its own container with a very specific setup to trigger.

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 95.36% (-0.01%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: aaf52d8 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? React with 👍/👎 or give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-04-09 18:38:53

Comparing candidate commit aaf52d8 in PR branch ivoanjo/libdatadog-v30-upgrade with baseline commit 2365975 in branch master.

Found 2 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 43 metrics, 1 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

• 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
• 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:profiling - estimated profiler gc per minute (sample 60000 times + serialize result)

• 🟩 throughput [+1.498op/s; +1.513op/s] or [+67.461%; +68.133%]

scenario:profiling - profiler gc

• 🟩 throughput [+29235.328op/s; +30839.469op/s] or [+9.332%; +9.844%]