Rollup of 6 pull requests #148178
Rollup of 6 pull requests #148178
Conversation
One can use unstable features on stable too, like via an env var
This updates the rust-version file to 4068baf.
Pull recent changes from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust via Josh. Upstream ref: 4068baf Filtered ref: da574cbe2d3bcda451b7508b65e82de837b9c92d Upstream diff: rust-lang/rust@4fa824b...4068baf This merge was created using https://github.com/rust-lang/josh-sync.
Rustc pull update
the previous command already builds using in-tree std
Add the gpu version of the kernel which was missing in the docs
I accidentally commited some things with my name/email swapped ^^'
The LoongArch C/C++ cross toolchain defaults to the `normal` code model, which can cause relocation overflows when linking LLVM after upgrading to verion 22. This change uses the `medium`code model for `loongarch64-linux-gnu` and `loongarch64-linux-musl` builds to avoid these linking errors.
This updates the rust-version file to b1b464d.
Pull recent changes from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust via Josh. Upstream ref: b1b464d Filtered ref: f94cd4e7de0695f11c7f0bf0d33bb39ce736c581 Upstream diff: rust-lang/rust@4068baf...b1b464d This merge was created using https://github.com/rust-lang/josh-sync.
remove untrue/contentious statement
Rustc pull update
- Fix 'the the' → 'the' in rustc_const_eval - Fix 'wether' → 'whether' in compiletest - Fix 'is is' → 'is' in rustc_ast_pretty (2 instances) Signed-off-by: Osama Abdelkader <osama.abdelkader@gmail.com>
…=lcnr Rework unsizing coercions in the new solver Replaces rust-lang#141926, contains: - a commit adding tests that fail before this work - the two commits from the previous PR - a commit in which these tests are fixed - finally, a fixup for an in my opinion rather large regression in diagnostics. It's still not perfect, but better? I hope this is roughly what you had in mind Fixes rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#241 and rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#238, adding tests for both r? `@lcnr`
Add `coverage` scope for controlling paths in code coverage This PR adds a `coverage` scope (for `-Zremap-path-scope`) for controlling if the paths that ends up in code coverage output should be remapped or not. Currently code coverage use the `macro` scope which is not a appropriate scope for them. Found during the stabilization of `-Zremap-path-scope` rust-lang#147611 (comment) and was asked to be in a separate PR in rust-lang#147611 (comment). r? compiler
…fleLapkin Add a mailmap entry I accidentally commited some things with my name/email swapped ^^'
ci: loongarch64: use medium code model to avoid relocation overflows The LoongArch C/C++ cross toolchain defaults to the `normal` code model, which can cause relocation overflows when linking LLVM after upgrading to verion 22. This change uses the `medium`code model for `loongarch64-linux-gnu` and `loongarch64-linux-musl` builds to avoid these linking errors.
rustc-dev-guide subtree update Subtree update of `rustc-dev-guide` to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide@b9fb8e9. Created using https://github.com/rust-lang/josh-sync. r? `@ghost`
…ds, r=lcnr Fix typos: duplicate words in comments - Fix 'the the' → 'the' in rustc_const_eval - Fix 'wether' → 'whether' in compiletest - Fix 'is is' → 'is' in rustc_ast_pretty (2 instances)
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #147840 (Rework unsizing coercions in the new solver) - #148139 (Add `coverage` scope for controlling paths in code coverage) - #148154 (Add a mailmap entry) - #148158 (ci: loongarch64: use medium code model to avoid relocation overflows) - #148172 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update) - #148175 (Fix typos: duplicate words in comments) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The failure message doesn't say what actually went wrong (the |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry yeh looks spurious, no rustdoc chanpes in here |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
Is there any reason to retry this rollup instead of going with #148195? |
|
idk why you closed this? seems fine to just retry, as usual in such cases? :) |
|
Well, I don't see any particular reason to keep retrying this old/small rollup, especially since it apparently forgot to include a pre-existing rollup=iffy for no reason I can see. Better to just roll up everything. |
|
Huh, if it was fine to roll up wouldn't it be an Can you elaborate on the "better" part? If no pr can be merged until every single failure has been identified, how is that better? |
|
Excluding PRs from rollup hurts overall latency by more than it helps the included PRs. Most PRs succeed. Excluding good PRs from rollup hurts the merge latency of those PRs, for no corresponding gain. Even if an excluded PR would fail, excluding it still hurts overall merge latency. The PR author has to wait longer before finding out what went wrong, and when that PR does eventually fail it will hurt the latency of other rolled-up PRs anyway. |
|
Meanwhile, deliberately excluding rollup=iffy PRs for hours or days (not an uncommon occurrence, sadly) is deeply unfair to those PRs, and mostly just encourages reviewers to lie about rollup status. |
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #147840 (Rework unsizing coercions in the new solver) - #148139 (Add `coverage` scope for controlling paths in code coverage) - #148154 (Add a mailmap entry) - #148158 (ci: loongarch64: use medium code model to avoid relocation overflows) - #148172 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update) - #148175 (Fix typos: duplicate words in comments) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
Bors, these PRs have already been merged. @bors r- retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
14 participants
Successful merges:
coveragescope for controlling paths in code coverage #148139 (Addcoveragescope for controlling paths in code coverage)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup