Migrate static-dylib-by-default, sanitizer-dylib-link, sanitizer-cdylib-link and sanitizer-staticlib-link run-make tests to rmake

[Oneirical]

Part of #121876 and the associated Google Summer of Code project.

Please try:

try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: test-various
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: x86_64-mingw
try-job: x86_64-gnu-llvm-18

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
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]

This PR modifies tests/run-make/. If this PR is trying to port a Makefile
run-make test to use rmake.rs, please update the
run-make port tracking issue
so we can track our progress. You can either modify the tracking issue
directly, or you can comment on the tracking issue and link this PR.

cc @jieyouxu

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #127778) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[jieyouxu]

@bors delegate+ (for try jobs)

[bors]

✌️ @Oneirical, you can now approve this pull request!

If @jieyouxu told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@jieyouxu

[Oneirical]

@bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 9abacec with merge 1caa5b7...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[Oneirical]

let dylib = if is_msvc() { "bar.dll.lib" } else { &dynamic_lib_name("bar") };

Ugly hack, but worth seeing if it works. @bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 63adc36 with merge 527f05c...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 527f05c (527f05c32565e4bf6044f4fb900349238c17e728)

[Oneirical]

@rustbot review

The hack is pretty ugly, but it's what the original test did. Tell me what you think @rustbot review

[jieyouxu]

Thanks, mostly LGTM now, just a question about whether we need either --target or ignore-cross-compile.

[jieyouxu]

To help answer those questions, let's run a couple of try jobs to see if it might be a problem (it might still be, even if the edge case is not exercised in current CI jobs).

@bors try

[jieyouxu]

@rustbot author

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 62fb491 with merge 062aefd...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 062aefd (062aefdf0466a578ce483997691a92ebece26453)

[jieyouxu]

Thanks

[jieyouxu]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy (sanitizer, linking, msvc specific behaviors, you name it)

[bors]

📌 Commit 62fb491 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 62fb491 with merge 7cb87cc...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-msvc-ext failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

    Finished `release` profile [optimized] target(s) in 0.38s
##[endgroup]
[TIMING] core::build_steps::tool::ToolBuild { compiler: Compiler { stage: 1, host: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc }, target: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, tool: "miri", path: "src/tools/miri", mode: ToolRustc, source_type: InTree, extra_features: [], allow_features: "", cargo_args: [] } -- 0.422
thread 'main' panicked at src/lib.rs:1727:17:
failed to copy `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage1-tools\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\release\miri.exe` to `C:\a\rust\rust\build\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\stage1\bin\miri.exe`: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process. (os error 32)
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:09
  local time: Sat, Jul 27, 2024 11:34:16 PM
  network time: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:34:16 GMT
##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[jieyouxu]

@bors retry (failed to copy miri.exe: "The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process. (os error 32)")

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 62fb491 with merge 3148b35...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 3148b35 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (3148b35): 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 -4.0%)

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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-4.0%	[-4.0%, -4.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.4%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-2.4%, -2.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 770.543s -> 769.808s (-0.10%)
Artifact size: 331.59 MiB -> 331.62 MiB (0.01%)