Skip to content

Conversation

CaiWeiran
Copy link

This PR addresses and resolves several test failures that occurred when running ./x test on the RISC-V architecture. The issues were due to platform-specific behavior, ABI differences, or code generation inconsistencies specific to RISC-V.

The following tests have been fixed:

  • assembly/dwarf-mixed-versions-lto.rs
  • codegen/const-vector.rs
  • codegen/enum/enum-aggregate.rs
  • codegen/simd/extract-insert-dyn.rs
  • codegen/transmute-scalar.rs
  • codegen/uninhabited-transparent-return-abi.rs

All changes have been tested locally with ./x test on a RISC-V target and now pass as expected.

Notes:

  • These fixes are scoped specifically to enable full test suite compliance for RISC-V targets.
  • No changes were made that affect other architectures.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 11, 2025

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
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 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 Jul 11, 2025
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
//@ compile-flags: -Copt-level=0 -Cno-prepopulate-passes
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why split this out to a separate file? Skimming the contents I don't see major differences vs the existing file. Maybe we could use revisions instead if there's a few small differences (see tests/codegen/sanitizer/kcfi/emit-kcfi-operand-bundle-itanium-cxx-abi-generalized.rs for example).

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The difference lies in the // CHECK lines. Would it be possible to separate them using revisions?

@CaiWeiran CaiWeiran closed this by deleting the head repository Jul 14, 2025
@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 14, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job tidy failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
fmt check
Diff in /checkout/tests/codegen/transmute-scalar.rs:2:
 //@ compile-flags: -C opt-level=0 -C no-prepopulate-passes
 
 #![crate_type = "lib"]
-#![feature(no_core, repr_simd, arm_target_feature, mips_target_feature, s390x_target_feature, riscv_target_feature)]
+#![feature(
+    no_core,
+    repr_simd,
+    arm_target_feature,
+    mips_target_feature,
+    s390x_target_feature,

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.

4 participants