Rollup of 5 pull requests #147997
Merged
Rollup of 5 pull requests #147997
+93
−15
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Taken from [a style team discussion](rust-lang/style-team#212 (comment)). Assumptions on my part: - I don't need to specify the lack of trailing spaces after the code fence / infostring - We aren't specifying when to include the infostring (one idea being if there is no shebang) - Keep it simple and have a single example instead of showing allowed several variations
When the unstable finterprint error was added, Rust was on fire, and we needed a quick way for people to sort of understand what's going on, follow the tracking issue, and leave some information without overwhelming the issue tracker and focusing on getting their code working. This is what motivated the previous message. It called this a "known issue", provided help on how to fix it, and only secondarily asked for a bug report. This is no longer true. These days incremental compilation is fairly solid and these issues are supposed to be rare, we expect *none* of them to exist (but obviously know that's not true). As such, it's time to reword this message. Recently someone mentioned how they didn't bother reporting this issue because it said that it was a "known issue", and I only got awareness of their problem because they complained about all the rustc-ice files hanging around their directories. This is not at all what we want, we want reports from people, ideally with a reproduction. To get this, I reworded the error. It now explicitly asks for a reproduction (and explaining what that means) and no longer calls it a "known issue". It also does not link to the tracking issue anymore, because I don't think this tracking issue is useful. It should probably be closed. I still mention the workaround, but explicitly call it a "workaround". People should report a reproduction and only *then* use the workaround.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <jonathantbrouwer@gmail.com>
docs(style): Specify the frontmatter style Taken from [a style team discussion](rust-lang/style-team#212 (comment)). Assumptions on my part: - I specify that frontmatter fences should not have trailing whitespace - We aren't specifying when to include the infostring (one idea being if there is no shebang) - Keep it simple and have a single example instead of showing allowed several variations Tracking issue: rust-lang#136889 Closes rust-lang/style-team#212
…int-ice, r=jackh726 Reword unstable fingerprints ICE to ask for reproduction When the unstable fingerprints error was added, Rust was on fire, and we needed a quick way for people to sort of understand what's going on, follow the tracking issue, and leave some information without overwhelming the issue tracker and focusing on getting their code working. This is what motivated the previous message. It called this a "known issue", provided help on how to fix it, and only secondarily asked for a bug report. This is no longer true. These days incremental compilation is fairly solid and these issues are supposed to be rare, we expect *none* of them to exist (but obviously know that's not true). As such, it's time to reword this message. Recently someone mentioned how they didn't bother reporting this issue because it said that it was a "known issue", and I only got awareness of their problem because they complained about all the rustc-ice files hanging around their directories (rust-lang#147825 (comment)). This is not at all what we want, we want reports from people, ideally with a reproduction. To get this, I reworded the error. It now explicitly asks for a reproduction (and explaining what that means) and no longer calls it a "known issue". It also does not link to the tracking issue anymore, because I don't think this tracking issue is useful. It should probably be closed. I still mention the workaround, but explicitly call it a "workaround". People should report a reproduction and only *then* use the workaround.
…_name, r=jdonszelmann Remove unused field `style` from `AttributeKind::CrateName` r? `@jdonszelmann`
…notriddle Fix invalid jump to def link generated on derive attributes Fixes rust-lang#147820. The issue was that we only handled bang macros whereas we should handle all of them. r? `@notriddle`
…te-hidden, r=fmease [rustdoc] Check `doc(cfg())` even of private/hidden items Fixes regression found out by `@fmease` [here](rust-lang#138907 (comment)). In short: the pass which checks the `doc(cfg())` attributes needed to be moved before the private/hidden stripping items passes.
rustbot
added
A-attributes
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: dc1feabef2 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
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 dc1feab (parent) -> 1d23d06 (this PR) Test differencesShow 2 test diffs2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy. Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 1d23d06800271f651fad07bf22bf5e298138972e --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (1d23d06): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 472.366s -> 472.957s (0.13%) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
stylefromAttributeKind::CrateName#147988 (Remove unused fieldstylefromAttributeKind::CrateName)doc(cfg())even of private/hidden items #147991 ([rustdoc] Checkdoc(cfg())even of private/hidden items)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup