Support non-stage0 check #81064
Merged
Support non-stage0 check #81064
Conversation
This file contains 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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
jyn514
added
the
T-bootstrap
jyn514
reviewed
Jan 16, 2021
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
jyn514
force-pushed
the
support-stage1-check
branch
from
51a0478
to
6a7be27
Compare
jyn514
added
S-waiting-on-author
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
jyn514
force-pushed
the
support-stage1-check
branch
from
6a7be27
to
97ddd41
Compare
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
support-stage1-check
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5f35f50
to
21e16e5
Compare
|
Adjusted to support target checking (well, host checking, but it's not actually important). |
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
support-stage1-check
branch
from
21e16e5
to
53989e4
Compare
|
This is great, thanks so much :) @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 53989e4 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
m-ou-se
added a commit
to m-ou-se/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2021
…k, r=jyn514 Support non-stage0 check Seems to work locally - a full stage 1 check succeeds, building std (because we can't get away with checking it), and then checking the compiler and other tools. This ran into the problem that a unconditional x.py check in stage 1 *both* checks and builds stage 1 std, and then has to clean up because for some reason the rmeta and rlib artifacts conflict (though I'm not actually entirely sure why, but it doesn't seem worth digging in in too much detail). Ideally we wouldn't be building and checking like that but it's a minor worry as checking std is pretty fast and you can avoid it if you're aiming for speed by passing the compiler (e.g., compiler/rustc) explicitly. r? `@jyn514`
m-ou-se
added a commit
to m-ou-se/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2021
…k, r=jyn514 Support non-stage0 check Seems to work locally - a full stage 1 check succeeds, building std (because we can't get away with checking it), and then checking the compiler and other tools. This ran into the problem that a unconditional x.py check in stage 1 *both* checks and builds stage 1 std, and then has to clean up because for some reason the rmeta and rlib artifacts conflict (though I'm not actually entirely sure why, but it doesn't seem worth digging in in too much detail). Ideally we wouldn't be building and checking like that but it's a minor worry as checking std is pretty fast and you can avoid it if you're aiming for speed by passing the compiler (e.g., compiler/rustc) explicitly. r? ``@jyn514``
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2021
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#79298 (correctly deal with late-bound lifetimes in anon consts) - rust-lang#80031 (resolve: Reject ambiguity built-in attr vs different built-in attr) - rust-lang#80201 (Add benchmark and fast path for BufReader::read_exact) - rust-lang#80635 (Improve diagnostics when closure doesn't meet trait bound) - rust-lang#80765 (resolve: Simplify collection of traits in scope) - rust-lang#80932 (Allow downloading LLVM on Windows and MacOS) - rust-lang#80983 (Remove is_dllimport_foreign_item definition from cg_ssa) - rust-lang#81064 (Support non-stage0 check) - rust-lang#81080 (Force vec![] to expression position only) - rust-lang#81082 (BTreeMap: clean up a few more comments) - rust-lang#81084 (Use Option::map instead of open-coding it) - rust-lang#81095 (Use Option::unwrap_or instead of open-coding it) - rust-lang#81107 (Add NonZeroUn::is_power_of_two) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
pushed a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2022
Stage 1 check has been supported since rust-lang#81064. rust-lang#81064 changed the error message for this, but I don't think there's any reason we should prevent using it. I tested locally and `keep-stage` works fine. Don't give a hard error when trying to use it.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2022
…ulacrum Support `x --keep-stage 0 check` Stage 1 check has been supported since rust-lang#81064. rust-lang#81064 changed the error message for this, but I don't think there's any reason we should prevent using it. I tested locally and `keep-stage` works fine. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Seems to work locally - a full stage 1 check succeeds, building std (because we can't get away with checking it), and then checking the compiler and other tools. This ran into the problem that a unconditional x.py check in stage 1 both checks and builds stage 1 std, and then has to clean up because for some reason the rmeta and rlib artifacts conflict (though I'm not actually entirely sure why, but it doesn't seem worth digging in in too much detail).
Ideally we wouldn't be building and checking like that but it's a minor worry as checking std is pretty fast and you can avoid it if you're aiming for speed by passing the compiler (e.g., compiler/rustc) explicitly.
r? @jyn514