Skip to content

Conversation

@Zalathar
Copy link
Member

@Zalathar Zalathar commented Nov 29, 2025

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

jacob-greenfield and others added 7 commits November 14, 2025 17:12
…nt, r=celinval

Add `DefId::parent()` accessor for `rustc_public`

Adds a `parent()` method to `DefId` (the `rustc_pub` version) which exposes the parent path, ie. `foo::bar::baz` -> `foo::bar`.

This is useful for organizing/grouping definitions into a tree, and is probably simpler and less brittle than attempting to parse the fully-qualified name into path components (e.g. especially when handling path components with qualified generic parameters).
Test the coexistence of 'stack-protector' and 'safe-stack'

This is a test to detect the coexistence of 'stack-protector' and 'safe-stack', and it's a supplement to pr rust-lang#147115 . After the solution to issue rust-lang#149340, I rewrote a version using minicore to circumvent the 'abi_mismatch' error.

r? `@SparrowLii` (Do you have time to review it?)
…gen-gcc-remove-unnecessary-unwrap, r=workingjubilee

Remove an unnecessary `unwrap` in `rustc_codegen_gcc`

This should hopefully unblock rust-lang#149425 (I couldn't find an in-flight PR that was already doing this).
I've tested  locally with the `master` version of Clippy that `rustc_codegen_gcc` passes the lints (the syncing PR could still fail for other reasons however).

I understand that `rustc_codegen_gcc` is normally developed [outside of this repo](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_gcc) but my understanding is that that repo is two-way synced regularly and hopefully it is acceptable to do this tiny change here to unblock the Clippy syncing PR (is there an established process for how to unblock these syncing PRs?). Of course feel free to close if this isn't the expected process.
@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. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Nov 29, 2025
@Zalathar
Copy link
Member Author

Rollup of everything.

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 29, 2025

📌 Commit 3b9b370 has been approved by Zalathar

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 Nov 29, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 29, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 3b9b370 with merge 791c041...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 29, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Zalathar
Pushing 791c041 to main...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 29, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 791c041 into rust-lang:main Nov 29, 2025
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.93.0 milestone Nov 29, 2025
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#144000 Add DefId::parent() accessor for rustc_public dcc70ab137c57dfff8956ebb9d3afa1d3dec3371 (link)
#149409 Test the coexistence of 'stack-protector' and 'safe-stack' 021dfcf639b6d79a4bda5af524c11e48f9b22837 (link)
#149449 Remove an unnecessary unwrap in rustc_codegen_gcc e83a6ed2fe589a05ba30aab7e55b6b98eae0dcea (link)

previous master: 3c5c55864f

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

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 3c5c558 (parent) -> 791c041 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 20 test diffs

Stage 1

  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#all: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#none: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack_all: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack_strong: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#strong: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui-fulldeps/rustc_public/check_def_parent.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored when the bootstrapping stage is stage1) (J1)

Stage 2

  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#all: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#none: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack_all: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack_strong: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#strong: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#all: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#none: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack_all: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#safestack_strong: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-safe-stack.rs#strong: [missing] -> ignore (only executed when the target is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) (J2)
  • [ui] tests/ui-fulldeps/rustc_public/check_def_parent.rs: [missing] -> pass (J3)

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 791c041c40f9c3084cc84492870e8ab60bce0dce --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. dist-x86_64-apple: 5731.1s -> 6875.3s (+20.0%)
  2. dist-aarch64-msvc: 6726.7s -> 5807.0s (-13.7%)
  3. aarch64-apple: 8009.7s -> 9063.5s (+13.2%)
  4. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3: 5571.7s -> 6302.7s (+13.1%)
  5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-2: 5136.4s -> 5643.1s (+9.9%)
  6. test-various: 6414.3s -> 7005.0s (+9.2%)
  7. dist-apple-various: 3653.0s -> 3988.9s (+9.2%)
  8. dist-loongarch64-musl: 5637.0s -> 5125.2s (-9.1%)
  9. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-1: 2934.5s -> 3196.2s (+8.9%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20-3: 6291.5s -> 5753.2s (-8.6%)
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.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (791c041): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -4.6%)

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)
-4.6% [-4.6%, -4.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -4.6% [-4.6%, -4.6%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary -3.0%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.0% [-3.0%, -3.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 469.399s -> 473.18s (0.81%)
Artifact size: 386.89 MiB -> 386.88 MiB (-0.00%)

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. rollup A PR which is a rollup 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.

7 participants