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

Bump minimum required LLVM version to 6.0 #56642

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Dec 17, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Dec 9, 2018

Based on the discussion in #55842, while the overall position of Rust wrt LLVM continues to be contentious, there does seem to be a consensus that there is no need for continued support of LLVM 5. This PR bumps our version requirement to LLVM 6.0 and makes Travis run against that.

I hope that this is going to unblock #52694. If I understand correctly, while this issue still exists in LLVM 6, Ubuntu has backported the relevant patch.

r? @alexcrichton

@nikic nikic force-pushed the nikic:llvm-6 branch from ef0ad1c to 706e67b Dec 9, 2018

@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

alexcrichton commented Dec 10, 2018

@bors: r+

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 10, 2018

📌 Commit 706e67b has been approved by alexcrichton

@gnzlbg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

gnzlbg commented Dec 10, 2018

@nikic thank you!

@petrochenkov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

petrochenkov commented Dec 10, 2018

The proprietary custom target I care about recently migrated to LLVM 6, so this is not an immediate problem to me, but I still find the tendency (#55842) worrying.

I think release_date(LLVM N.0.1) + 1 year or something like that would be a good conservative estimate for making LLVM N the minimum version in rustc, e.g. for LLVM 6 that would mean Jul 5 2019.

@gnzlbg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

gnzlbg commented Dec 10, 2018

Does that mean that for you it would be acceptable if Rust supported the last ~3 LLVM versions ?

E.g. in August 2019 LLVM 9 will be released, and if by then Rust supported LLVM >=7 that would be ok ?

@petrochenkov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

petrochenkov commented Dec 10, 2018

@gnzlbg
Oh, sorry, off-by-one error. Fixed.
LLVM 7.0.1 is not yet released (but should be released soon, say December 2018), so in December 2019 my formula would allow making LLVM 7 minimum version.
So I don't care about the number of last LLVM versions, only about time passed since release of LLVM N.0.1.

@gnzlbg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

gnzlbg commented Dec 10, 2018

I see. I think you already mentioned that in the issue, but if not, could you mention it there ? (~one year after the x.0.1 release) ?

@cuviper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Dec 11, 2018

The env_alloca hack can go away again -- roughly reverting #53239.

Remove env_alloca hack
This is no longer necessary for LLVM >= 6.
@nikic

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Dec 11, 2018

@cuviper Thanks for pointing that out, I've included the removal of the env_alloca hack.

@bors r=alexcrichton

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 11, 2018

📌 Commit 6c2d704 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 16, 2018

⌛️ Testing commit 6c2d704 with merge 58cdbb9...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2018

Auto merge of #56642 - nikic:llvm-6, r=alexcrichton
Bump minimum required LLVM version to 6.0

Based on the discussion in #55842, while the overall position of Rust wrt LLVM continues to be contentious, there does seem to be a consensus that there is no need for continued support of LLVM 5. This PR bumps our version requirement to LLVM 6.0 and makes Travis run against that.

I hope that this is going to unblock #52694. If I understand correctly, while this issue still exists in LLVM 6, Ubuntu has backported the relevant patch.

r? @alexcrichton
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 16, 2018

💥 Test timed out

@kennytm

This comment has been minimized.

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 16, 2018

⌛️ Testing commit 6c2d704 with merge 3e37460...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2018

Auto merge of #56642 - nikic:llvm-6, r=alexcrichton
Bump minimum required LLVM version to 6.0

Based on the discussion in #55842, while the overall position of Rust wrt LLVM continues to be contentious, there does seem to be a consensus that there is no need for continued support of LLVM 5. This PR bumps our version requirement to LLVM 6.0 and makes Travis run against that.

I hope that this is going to unblock #52694. If I understand correctly, while this issue still exists in LLVM 6, Ubuntu has backported the relevant patch.

r? @alexcrichton
@pietroalbini

This comment has been minimized.

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 16, 2018

⌛️ Testing commit 6c2d704 with merge 92d458e...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2018

Auto merge of #56642 - nikic:llvm-6, r=alexcrichton
Bump minimum required LLVM version to 6.0

Based on the discussion in #55842, while the overall position of Rust wrt LLVM continues to be contentious, there does seem to be a consensus that there is no need for continued support of LLVM 5. This PR bumps our version requirement to LLVM 6.0 and makes Travis run against that.

I hope that this is going to unblock #52694. If I understand correctly, while this issue still exists in LLVM 6, Ubuntu has backported the relevant patch.

r? @alexcrichton
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 16, 2018

💥 Test timed out

@pietroalbini

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pietroalbini commented Dec 16, 2018

@bors retry

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 16, 2018

⌛️ Testing commit 6c2d704 with merge f53a69d...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2018

Auto merge of #56642 - nikic:llvm-6, r=alexcrichton
Bump minimum required LLVM version to 6.0

Based on the discussion in #55842, while the overall position of Rust wrt LLVM continues to be contentious, there does seem to be a consensus that there is no need for continued support of LLVM 5. This PR bumps our version requirement to LLVM 6.0 and makes Travis run against that.

I hope that this is going to unblock #52694. If I understand correctly, while this issue still exists in LLVM 6, Ubuntu has backported the relevant patch.

r? @alexcrichton
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 17, 2018

💔 Test failed - status-travis

@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

rust-highfive commented Dec 17, 2018

The job arm-android of your PR failed on Travis (raw log). Through arcane magic we have determined that the following fragments from the build log may contain information about the problem.

Click to expand the log.
[01:33:32] test string::test_split_off_unicode ... ok
[01:33:32] test string::test_str_truncate ... ok
[01:33:32] test string::test_str_truncate_invalid_len ... ok
[01:33:32] test string::test_str_truncate_split_codepoint ... ok
[01:33:32] died due to signal 11
[01:33:32] 
[01:33:32] 
[01:33:32] 
[01:33:32] command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0/bin/cargo" "test" "--target" "arm-linux-androideabi" "-j" "4" "--release" "--locked" "--color" "always" "--features" "panic-unwind backtrace" "--manifest-path" "/checkout/src/libstd/Cargo.toml" "-p" "alloc" "--"
[01:33:32] 
[01:33:32] 
[01:33:32] failed to run: /checkout/obj/build/bootstrap/debug/bootstrap test --target arm-linux-androideabi
[01:33:32] Build completed unsuccessfully in 1:19:30
---
travis_time:end:05555be0:start=1545008328169123060,finish=1545008328183846998,duration=14723938
travis_fold:end:after_failure.3
travis_fold:start:after_failure.4
travis_time:start:176e11ba
$ ln -s . checkout && for CORE in obj/cores/core.*; do EXE=$(echo $CORE | sed 's|obj/cores/core\.[0-9]*\.!checkout!\(.*\)|\1|;y|!|/|'); if [ -f "$EXE" ]; then printf travis_fold":start:crashlog\n\033[31;1m%s\033[0m\n" "$CORE"; gdb --batch -q -c "$CORE" "$EXE" -iex 'set auto-load off' -iex 'dir src/' -iex 'set sysroot .' -ex bt -ex q; echo travis_fold":"end:crashlog; fi; done || true
travis_fold:end:after_failure.4
travis_fold:start:after_failure.5
travis_time:start:0f90cd78
travis_time:start:0f90cd78
$ cat ./obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/native/asan/build/lib/asan/clang_rt.asan-dynamic-i386.vers || true
cat: ./obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/native/asan/build/lib/asan/clang_rt.asan-dynamic-i386.vers: No such file or directory
travis_fold:end:after_failure.5
travis_fold:start:after_failure.6
travis_time:start:12373d68
$ dmesg | grep -i kill

I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact @TimNN. (Feature Requests)

@kennytm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Dec 17, 2018

@bors retry

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 17, 2018

⌛️ Testing commit 6c2d704 with merge 63f8e6e...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2018

Auto merge of #56642 - nikic:llvm-6, r=alexcrichton
Bump minimum required LLVM version to 6.0

Based on the discussion in #55842, while the overall position of Rust wrt LLVM continues to be contentious, there does seem to be a consensus that there is no need for continued support of LLVM 5. This PR bumps our version requirement to LLVM 6.0 and makes Travis run against that.

I hope that this is going to unblock #52694. If I understand correctly, while this issue still exists in LLVM 6, Ubuntu has backported the relevant patch.

r? @alexcrichton
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 17, 2018

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: alexcrichton
Pushing 63f8e6e to master...

@bors bors merged commit 6c2d704 into rust-lang:master Dec 17, 2018

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details

@cuviper cuviper added the relnotes label Jan 10, 2019

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