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

Do some preparation work for compiletest check-cfg #123577

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024

Conversation

Urgau
Copy link
Member

@Urgau Urgau commented Apr 6, 2024

This PR does several preparation work for having always-on check-cfg in compiletest.

In particular, this PR does two main things:

  • It unifies all the always-false cfgs under the FALSE cfg (as it seems to be the convention under tests/ui)
  • It also removes some useless conditions

This is done ahead of the introduction of the always-on check-cfg in compiletest to reduce the amount of changes in that follow-up work. I also think that this is useful even without that follow-up work.

Since they are never set and don't have impact on the test.

Or for the cfg-panic tests are already tested with check-cfg.
While `false` is accepted by `--cfg` it isn't by `#[cfg(false)]`
since in that context `false` is the boolean not a ident.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 6, 2024

r? @BoxyUwU

rustbot has assigned @BoxyUwU.
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 rustbot added PG-exploit-mitigations Project group: Exploit mitigations 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. labels Apr 6, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 6, 2024

Some changes occurred in tests/ui/sanitizer

cc @rust-lang/project-exploit-mitigations, @rcvalle

@Nilstrieb
Copy link
Member

The cfg(FALSE) could be replaced with cfg(any()), but I agree that cfg(FALSE) is easier to understand and should be preferred.

@Urgau
Copy link
Member Author

Urgau commented Apr 7, 2024

Yeah, I also though of using cfg(any()) but decided against since FALSE is already used quite extensively in our UI test suite and as you mentioned it is much easier to understand.

@BoxyUwU
Copy link
Member

BoxyUwU commented Apr 8, 2024

r? @oli-obk

@rustbot rustbot assigned oli-obk and unassigned BoxyUwU Apr 8, 2024
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 8, 2024

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 8, 2024

📌 Commit 47ff773 has been approved by oli-obk

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 Apr 8, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 8, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 47ff773 with merge 0e5f520...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 8, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 0e5f520 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 8, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 0e5f520 into rust-lang:master Apr 8, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.79.0 milestone Apr 8, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (0e5f520): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

Results

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)
1.2% [1.2%, 1.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 667.477s -> 666.9s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 318.52 MiB -> 318.48 MiB (-0.01%)

@Urgau Urgau deleted the prep-work-for-compiletest-check-cfg branch April 9, 2024 21:42
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2024
…eck-cfg-2, r=jieyouxu

Further cleanup cfgs in the UI test suite

This PR does more cleanup of cfgs in our UI test suite, in preparation for adding automatic always on check-cfg (but is IMO worth landing even without that follow up).

To be more specific this PR:
 - replaces (the last remaining) never true cfgs by the `FALSE` cfg
 - fix `proc-macro/derive-helper-configured.rs` *(typo in directive)*
 - and comment some current unused `#[cfg_attr]` *(missing revisions)*

Follow-up to rust-lang#123577.
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#123702 - Urgau:prep-work-for-compiletest-check-cfg-2, r=jieyouxu

Further cleanup cfgs in the UI test suite

This PR does more cleanup of cfgs in our UI test suite, in preparation for adding automatic always on check-cfg (but is IMO worth landing even without that follow up).

To be more specific this PR:
 - replaces (the last remaining) never true cfgs by the `FALSE` cfg
 - fix `proc-macro/derive-helper-configured.rs` *(typo in directive)*
 - and comment some current unused `#[cfg_attr]` *(missing revisions)*

Follow-up to rust-lang#123577.
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2024
…youxu

Enable `--check-cfg` by default in UI tests

This PR enables-by-default `--check-cfg` in UI tests, now that it has become stable.

To do so this PR does 2 main things:
 - it introduce the `no-auto-check-cfg` directive to `compiletest`, to prevent any `--check-cfg` args (only to be used for `--check-cfg` tests)
 - it updates the _remaining_[^1] UI tests by either:
     - allowing the lint when neither expecting the lint nor giving the check-cfg args make sense
     - give the appropriate check-cfg args
     - or expect the lint, when it useful

[^1]: some preparation work was done in rust-lang#123577 rust-lang#123702

I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.

r? `@jieyouxu`
fmease added a commit to fmease/rust that referenced this pull request May 2, 2024
…youxu

Enable `--check-cfg` by default in UI tests

This PR enables-by-default `--check-cfg` in UI tests, now that it has become stable.

To do so this PR does 2 main things:
 - it introduce the `no-auto-check-cfg` directive to `compiletest`, to prevent any `--check-cfg` args (only to be used for `--check-cfg` tests)
 - it updates the _remaining_[^1] UI tests by either:
     - allowing the lint when neither expecting the lint nor giving the check-cfg args make sense
     - give the appropriate check-cfg args
     - or expect the lint, when it useful

[^1]: some preparation work was done in rust-lang#123577 rust-lang#123702

I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.

r? `@jieyouxu`
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request May 2, 2024
…youxu

Enable `--check-cfg` by default in UI tests

This PR enables-by-default `--check-cfg` in UI tests, now that it has become stable.

To do so this PR does 2 main things:
 - it introduce the `no-auto-check-cfg` directive to `compiletest`, to prevent any `--check-cfg` args (only to be used for `--check-cfg` tests)
 - it updates the _remaining_[^1] UI tests by either:
     - allowing the lint when neither expecting the lint nor giving the check-cfg args make sense
     - give the appropriate check-cfg args
     - or expect the lint, when it useful

[^1]: some preparation work was done in rust-lang#123577 rust-lang#123702

I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.

r? `@jieyouxu`
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
Enable `--check-cfg` by default in UI tests

This PR enables-by-default `--check-cfg` in UI tests, now that it has become stable.

To do so this PR does 2 main things:
 - it introduce the `no-auto-check-cfg` directive to `compiletest`, to prevent any `--check-cfg` args (only to be used for `--check-cfg` tests)
 - it updates the _remaining_[^1] UI tests by either:
     - allowing the lint when neither expecting the lint nor giving the check-cfg args make sense
     - give the appropriate check-cfg args
     - or expect the lint, when it useful

[^1]: some preparation work was done in rust-lang#123577 rust-lang#123702

I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.

r? `@jieyouxu`
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
Enable `--check-cfg` by default in UI tests

This PR enables-by-default `--check-cfg` in UI tests, now that it has become stable.

To do so this PR does 2 main things:
 - it introduce the `no-auto-check-cfg` directive to `compiletest`, to prevent any `--check-cfg` args (only to be used for `--check-cfg` tests)
 - it updates the _remaining_[^1] UI tests by either:
     - allowing the lint when neither expecting the lint nor giving the check-cfg args make sense
     - give the appropriate check-cfg args
     - or expect the lint, when it useful

[^1]: some preparation work was done in rust-lang#123577 rust-lang#123702

I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.

r? `@jieyouxu`
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. PG-exploit-mitigations Project group: Exploit mitigations 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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants