Skip to content

Update LLVM submodule #143126

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2025
Merged

Update LLVM submodule #143126

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2025

Conversation

@dianqk
Copy link
Member

@dianqk dianqk commented Jun 28, 2025 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

Fixes #140686, fixes #141913, fixes #142752, fixes #143399.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jun 28, 2025
workingjubilee
workingjubilee reviewed Jun 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Jun 28, 2025

I'm currently unable to access my Mac.

@bors2 try jobs=x86_apple*,aarch64-apple

@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #143126 - dianqk:update-llvm, r=<try>
5c1100c 
Add a regression test for ld64

We might want a test case.

r? ghost
try-job: x86_apple*
try-job: aarch64-apple
jieyouxu
jieyouxu reviewed Jun 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
tests/ui/darwin-ld64.rs
Comment on lines +5 to +7
// This is a regression test for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140686.
// Although this is a ld64(ld-classic) bug, we still need to support it
// due to cross-compilation and support for older Xcode.
Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu Jun 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Question: do we know if ld-classic will ever be removed in newer Xcode versions?

(EDIT: actually probably nevermind, we'll then either drop this test and/or need to bump our min baseline versions anyway.)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nobody knows. Even after removing it, we might still need a long time to get rid of the test. :(

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps we could wait for new updates from Apple first, such as a fix for the ld64 bug, or the release of new linker source code.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh for the test I'm not too worried even if somehow say a macos image bumps the xcode version and then this test blocks full CI, in that situation this test can be disabled or removed easily.

I was just musing if ld-classic might be gone.

@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@dianqk

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #143126 - dianqk:update-llvm, r=<try>
2287774 
Add a regression test for ld64

We might want a test case.

r? ghost
try-job: x86_64-apple*
try-job: aarch64-apple
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@dianqk

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #143126 - dianqk:update-llvm, r=<try>
2fc68db 
Add a regression test for ld64

We might want a test case.

r? ghost
try-job: x86_64-apple*
try-job: aarch64-apple
@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@dianqk

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #143126 - dianqk:update-llvm, r=<try>
28292a1 
Add a regression test for ld64

We might want a test case.

r? ghost
try-job: x86_64-apple*
@rust-bors

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
@dianqk

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Jun 30, 2025

@bors2 try jobs=x86_64-apple-2

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 30, 2025

⌛ Trying commit 1e974cd with merge dfeb438…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2025
@rust-bors
Auto merge of #143126 - dianqk:update-llvm, r=<try>
dfeb438 
Add a regression test for ld64

We might want a test case.

r? ghost
try-job: x86_64-apple-2
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jun 30, 2025

💔 Test failed

@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 5, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 6, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 1339b90 with merge 75d5834...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 6, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nikic
Pushing 75d5834 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 6, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 75d5834 into rust-lang:master Jul 6, 2025
14 of 23 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.90.0 milestone Jul 6, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 6, 2025

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 5adb489 (parent) -> 75d5834 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 5 test diffs

Stage 1

  • [ui] tests/ui/darwin-ld64.rs: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-apple-darwin) (J0)

Stage 2

  • [ui] tests/ui/darwin-ld64.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/darwin-ld64.rs: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-apple-darwin) (J2)
  • [run-make] tests/run-make/compressed-debuginfo-zstd: pass -> ignore (ignored if LLVM wasn't build with zstd for ELF section compression (we want LLVM/LLD to be built with zstd support)) (J3)

Additionally, 1 doctest diff were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 75d5834a6c571cb0455acb5128ad51118fcbf2be --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. aarch64-apple: 4255.6s -> 9092.6s (113.7%)
  2. x86_64-apple-2: 3788.5s -> 7679.9s (102.7%)
  3. x86_64-apple-1: 6130.4s -> 10384.9s (69.4%)
  4. dist-aarch64-linux: 5427.7s -> 8145.4s (50.1%)
  5. pr-check-1: 1658.7s -> 2327.7s (40.3%)
  6. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2822.6s -> 3892.2s (37.9%)
  7. pr-check-2: 1958.9s -> 2670.2s (36.3%)
  8. x86_64-gnu-tools: 3600.8s -> 4749.1s (31.9%)
  9. armhf-gnu: 5029.7s -> 6487.3s (29.0%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-nopt: 6857.6s -> 8720.1s (27.2%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@dianqk dianqk deleted the update-llvm branch July 6, 2025 05:26
@nikic nikic added the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 6, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (75d5834): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - BENCHMARK(S) FAILED

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

❗ ❗ ❗ ❗ ❗
Warning ⚠️: The following benchmark(s) failed to build:

  • rustc

❗ ❗ ❗ ❗ ❗

cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.3%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.3% [-1.3%, -1.3%] 1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 460.95s -> 162.322s (-64.79%)
Artifact size: 372.07 MiB -> 372.06 MiB (-0.00%)

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jul 6, 2025

Hmm, I wonder what happened here. Some CI jobs were much slower, but that's expected, as they now had to build LLVM. But there were also a few test changes, which is a bit weird, not sure if that's just an artifact of us building LLVM on CI.

And the bootstrap benchmark has also time-outed. I wonder if it was unable to use download-ci-llvm for some reason 🤔 Sadly we don't currently log its output, I'll change that. We'll see what happens in the benchmark of the next master merge.

@Kobzol Kobzol mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2025
Merged
@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Jul 6, 2025

@Kobzol The compressed-debuginfo-zstd test change always happens on LLVM updates due to a difference in configuration between CI LLVM (has zstd) and that test runner (doesn't have zstd).

@PaulDance
Copy link
Contributor

I see that this is already beta-nominated and so will follow due process, but I just wanted to say it would be nice if this was indeed backported to beta in order to avoid having to wait for 1.90 since 1.86.

@jieyouxu jieyouxu removed the T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) label Jul 7, 2025
@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

Beta backport accepted as per compiler team on Zulip. A backport PR will be authored by the release team at the end of the current development cycle. Backport labels handled by them.

@rustbot label +beta-accepted

@rustbot rustbot added the beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 10, 2025
@cuviper cuviper mentioned this pull request Jul 10, 2025
Merged
@cuviper cuviper modified the milestones: 1.90.0, 1.89.0 Jul 10, 2025
@cuviper cuviper removed the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 10, 2025
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of #143757 - cuviper:beta-next, r=cuviper
b123710 
[beta] backports

- Beta backport: null terminate UNICODE_STRINGs #143275
- Fix hang in --print=file-names in bootstrap #142928
- Reduce mismatched-lifetime-syntaxes suggestions to MaybeIncorrect #142980
- Update LLVM submodule #143126
- Do not unify borrowed locals in CopyProp. #143509
- Disable docs for `compiler-builtins` and `sysroot` #143660
- Update version placeholders in stdarch rust-lang/stdarch#1840

r? cuviper
@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jul 19, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Since this PR also fixed issue #144163 that was encountered on stable, for due diligence we can nominate it for a backport as well, but only if there's going to be a point release (imho):

If there's a release, it'll be good to have this in, and if there's no release, it's also fine.

@rustbot label +stable-nominated

@rustbot rustbot added the stable-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the stable channel. label Jul 19, 2025
@lqd
Copy link
Member

lqd commented Jul 19, 2025

Unfortunately, @nikic reminded us that this backport would likely not be doable, because it depends on previous LLVM bumps that are not present in 1.88.

Therefore, un-nominating because there's no need to discuss. Sorry for the noise 🙏.

@rustbot label -stable-nominated

@rustbot rustbot removed the stable-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the stable channel. label Jul 19, 2025
@jieyouxu jieyouxu mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2025
Closed
@bgw bgw mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2025
Merged
bgw added a commit to vercel/next.js that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2025
@bgw
Turbopack: Remove workaround in hyper for rustc miscompilation bug on…
0a02fd8 
… macos intel (#84578)

Reverts #81950

This bug was fixed a few months ago upstream in rustc with rust-lang/rust#143126

We worked around this by patching the hyper crate since updating rustc was too risky to do in a patch release. We've since upgraded our toolchain.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jieyouxu jieyouxu jieyouxu left review comments

@workingjubilee workingjubilee workingjubilee left review comments

Assignees

@nikic nikic

Labels

A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. 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.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

1.89.0