Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rollup of 6 pull requests #127296

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Jul 4, 2024
Merged

Rollup of 6 pull requests #127296

merged 17 commits into from
Jul 4, 2024

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

compiler-errors and others added 17 commits June 28, 2024 14:20
…estebank

Change return-type-notation to use `(..)`

Aligns the syntax with the current wording of [RFC 3654](rust-lang/rfcs#3654). Also implements rustfmt support (along with making a match exhaustive).

Tracking:
* rust-lang#109417
…ieril

More refactorings to rustc_interface

Follow up to rust-lang#126834
Update LLVM submodule

Fixes rust-lang#112548 and unlock rust-lang#125642.

r? ``@cuviper`` or ``@nikic``
…rameters-check, r=estebank

Fix incorrect suggestion for extra argument with a type error

Fixes rust-lang#126246

I tried to fix it in the `find_errors` of ArgMatrix, but seems it's hard to avoid breaking some other test cases.

The root cause is we eliminate the first argument even with a type error at here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6292b2af620dbd771ebb687c3a93c69ba8f97268/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/checks.rs#L664

So the left argument is always treated as extra one.

But if there is already a type error, an error message will be generated firstly, which make this issue a trivial one.
…rustdoc-io-error, r=jieyouxu

Disable rmake test rustdoc-io-error on riscv64gc-gnu

In rust-lang#126917 we disabled `inaccessible-temp-dir` on `riscv64gc-gnu` because the container runs the build as `root` (just like the `armhf-gnu` builds). Tests creating an inaccessible test directory are not possible, since `root` can always touch those directories.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/553a69030e5a086eb3841d020db8c9c463948c72/src/ci/docker/host-x86_64/disabled/riscv64gc-gnu/Dockerfile#L99

This means the tests are run as `root`. As `root`, it's perfectly normal and reasonable to violate permission checks this way:

```bash
$ sudo mkdir scratch
$ sudo chmod o-w scratch
$ sudo mkdir scratch/backs
$
```

Because of this, this PR makes the test ignored on `riscv64gc` (just like on `armhf-gnu`) for now.

As an alternative, I believe the best long-term strategy would be to not run the tests as `root` for this job. Some preliminary exploration was done in rust-lang#126917 (comment), however that appears a larger lift.

## Testing

> [!NOTE]
> `riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu` is a [**Tier 2 with Host Tools** platform](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/rustc/platform-support.html), all tests may not necessarily pass! This change should only ignore `inaccessible-temp-dir` and not affect other tests.

You can test out the job locally:

```sh
DEPLOY=1 ./src/ci/docker/run.sh riscv64gc-gnu
```

r? `@jieyouxu`
@rustbot rustbot added A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jul 3, 2024
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=6

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 3, 2024

📌 Commit 79bdb89 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 3, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 3, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 79bdb89 with merge b454012...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing b454012 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 4, 2024
@bors bors merged commit b454012 into rust-lang:master Jul 4, 2024
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.81.0 milestone Jul 4, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#127092 Change return-type-notation to use (..) 08e37fe6849d424a8a7d6b23a7bd2c490e8676f7 (link)
#127184 More refactorings to rustc_interface 0f569492d2939fbb6ba3fe93a4e017c77defc460 (link)
#127190 Update LLVM submodule 72f22fa6e28f4f035c28389ab0d240cf7db8877b (link)
#127253 Fix incorrect suggestion for extra argument with a type err… 4a3d57b4c6772c1e53078ba4e0f986cfca6255d7 (link)
#127280 Disable rmake test rustdoc-io-error on riscv64gc-gnu cc0d481c3eb31b04cddb43ca0213d22c35a2c648 (link)
#127294 Less magic number for corountine 6ec3a519af8650af3cb71d31f80809e93e3736b5 (link)

previous master: aa1d4f6826

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b454012): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -6.7%, secondary 0.2%)

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)
2.6% [0.4%, 4.8%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-6.7% [-6.7%, -6.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.4% [-2.1%, -0.6%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) -6.7% [-6.7%, -6.7%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.1%)

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)
0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.5% [-0.6%, -0.5%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 724.291s -> 742.044s (2.45%)
Artifact size: 327.61 MiB -> 327.58 MiB (-0.01%)

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-1t1isa7 branch September 1, 2024 17:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants