Update the bootstrap compiler

[jyn514]

This updates the bootstrap compiler, notably leaving out a change to enable semicolon in macro expressions lint, because stdarch still depends on the old behavior.

[rust-highfive]

r? @kennytm

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[ehuss]

I think the cfg(not(bootstrap)) annotations should not be removed for places where it was added after the beta fork. #79078 was just recently merged, so it needs to keep the cfg(not(bootstrap)) for the derive changes since it is not in 1.51.

I think stdarch is usually updated by other people, and it's not really necessary to update here. (fwiw, it looks like the bootstrap checks have already been removed, someone just needs to do a submodule update, but I'm uncertain how they decide when to do that).

[jyn514]

Thanks! In that case I think this is ready to go :)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I'd like to hold off on landing this so we can also pick up the beta compiler bump in #82062, which should hopefully be released in ~3 hours.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=never

Updated the bootstrap compiler to the just released beta.

[bors]

📌 Commit 12e0c8cde3837bdcead83331f3f534de302a6fdd has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[Aaron1011]

This updates the bootstrap compiler, notably leaving out a change to enable semicolon in macro expressions lint, because stdarch still depends on the old behavior.

I thought I had fixed that in rust-lang/stdarch#938. Are there now other places in stdarch where the lint is firing?

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I think we haven't bumped stdarch since then.

[jyn514]

I think we haven't bumped stdarch since then.

I'm going to go ahead and do that here (since it seems like it might be a while before bors gets around to this PR).

[jyn514]

Err actually I just remembered stdarch has a tendency to hurt compile times for core :( so I'll make the submodule update separate so I can mark it as rollup=never

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 12e0c8cde3837bdcead83331f3f534de302a6fdd with merge e8f7d049ae36dec0dbdfb0592914fc2feaa1a74a...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[richkadel]

Side note... It is a little curious that this change also happens to move the macro expansion's perceived Span location for format!() from line 112 (where it is called) to line 97 (where it is defined). (Even more curious that the spanview source includes curly braces on the lines above and below the expansion.)

It's not doing any harm though. The llvm-cov show results are the same, apparently. Just interesting to wonder about how those lines are computed.

FYI: @tmandry @wesleywiser (No action here, but just something to be aware of in case we ever see an issue with similar span results.)

[richkadel]

I should have included the file reference in that prior comment:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/run-make-fulldeps/coverage/closure.rs#L96-113

[Mark-Simulacrum]

FWIW I think I was also able to observe the problematic test result deletion when blessing, but I'm also not sure what caused it.

@bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit b1a4bca has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b1a4bca with merge ddf053995d5752020198edeb74fc1f5e5daff42f...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[jyn514]

2021-02-23T04:31:14.6811034Z ##[section]Starting: Request a runner to run this job
2021-02-23T04:31:15.6106890Z Can't find any online and idle self-hosted runner in current repository that matches the required labels: 'ubuntu-latest'
2021-02-23T04:31:15.6602366Z Can't find any online and idle self-hosted runner in current repository's organization account that matches the required labels: 'ubuntu-latest'
2021-02-23T04:31:15.7912536Z Found online and idle hosted runner in current repository's organization account that matches the required labels: 'ubuntu-latest'
2021-02-23T04:31:15.9041138Z ##[section]Finishing: Request a runner to run this job

@bors retry

[ehuss]

@jyn514 Those messages about not finding a runner are normal (it happens with every job).

It looks like the dist-aarch64-apple job had a network error:

2021-02-23T04:28:38.6007420Z Building rustdoc for stage2 (x86_64-apple-darwin)
2021-02-23T04:28:40.0188730Z Downloading crates ...
2021-02-23T04:30:09.0461410Z warning: spurious network error (2 tries remaining): [28] Timeout was reached (failed to download any data for `pulldown-cmark v0.8.0` within 30s)
2021-02-23T04:30:09.0466040Z warning: spurious network error (2 tries remaining): [28] Timeout was reached (download of `minifier v0.0.33` failed to transfer more than 10 bytes in 30s)
2021-02-23T04:30:09.0468510Z warning: spurious network error (2 tries remaining): [28] Timeout was reached (failed to download any data for `macro-utils v0.1.3` within 30s)
2021-02-23T04:31:39.7290150Z warning: spurious network error (1 tries remaining): [28] Timeout was reached (failed to download any data for `macro-utils v0.1.3` within 30s)
2021-02-23T04:31:39.7292130Z warning: spurious network error (1 tries remaining): [28] Timeout was reached (download of `minifier v0.0.33` failed to transfer more than 10 bytes in 30s)
2021-02-23T04:31:39.7293960Z warning: spurious network error (1 tries remaining): [28] Timeout was reached (failed to download any data for `pulldown-cmark v0.8.0` within 30s)
2021-02-23T04:33:09.1070380Z error: failed to download from `https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/pulldown-cmark/0.8.0/download`
2021-02-23T04:33:09.1071520Z 
2021-02-23T04:33:09.1071960Z Caused by:
2021-02-23T04:33:09.1073220Z   [28] Timeout was reached (failed to download any data for `pulldown-cmark v0.8.0` within 30s)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b1a4bca with merge cd64446...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing cd64446 to master...