Skip to content
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

Rollup of 9 pull requests #138923

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Mar 25, 2025
Merged

Rollup of 9 pull requests #138923

merged 26 commits into from
Mar 25, 2025

Conversation

TaKO8Ki
Copy link
Member

@TaKO8Ki TaKO8Ki commented Mar 25, 2025

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

pietroalbini and others added 26 commits March 18, 2025 10:10
The old Makefile-based infrastructure included support for executing
binaries with remote-test-client if configured, but that didn't get
ported to run_make_support as part of the rmake migration.

This PR re-introduces back that support, with the same implementation
(and limitations) of the original Makefile-based support.
They're dodgy, covering all the keywords, including weak ones, and
edition-specific ones without considering the edition. They have a
single use in rustfmt. This commit changes that use to
`is_reserved_ident`, which is a much more widely used alternative and is
good enough, judging by the lack of effect on the test suite.
So the order of the `Symbol::is_*` predicates match the order of the
keywords list.
Now that there's also a meta relnotes tracking issue.
…trieb

Keyword tweaks

r? ```@Noratrieb```
resolve: Avoid some unstable iteration 2

Continuation of rust-lang#138502.
…jieyouxu

Reintroduce remote-test support in run-make tests

The old Makefile-based infrastructure included support for executing binaries with remote-test-client if configured, but that didn't get ported to run_make_support as part of the rmake migration.

This PR re-introduces back that support, with the same implementation (and limitations) of the original Makefile-based support.

[Old Makefile-based implementation of this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9b8accbeb6336fa24d02b2a8bcaecaf44fe2bb65/tests/run-make/tools.mk#L65-L74)

try-job: armhf-gnu
…degen_backend, r=workingjubilee

Make default_codegen_backend serializable

This PR makes default_codegen_backend serializable.
… r=camelid

[rustdoc] Remove duplicated loop when computing doc cfgs

Working on implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3631-rustdoc-cfgs-handling.md and found this weird case where the first loop was actually not doing anything since we were passing `cfg(...)` to `Cfg::parse` instead of `cfg(...)` items.

Well, that should be a first nice cleanup before the rest comes in.

cc ```@notriddle```
r? ```@camelid```
…group-desc, r=cuviper

Slightly reword triagebot ping message for `relnotes-interest-group`

Now that there's also a meta relnotes tracking issue.

r? ```@cuviper``` (or release)
resolve: Avoid remaining unstable iteration

Continuation of rust-lang#138580.
This should be the performance sensitive part.
…-tweaks, r=lcnr

Fix/tweak some tests in new solver

Bunch of miscellaneous new solver tweaks that I found from the failing tests. Can split these out, but they all seemed small enough to not warrant separate PRs.

r? lcnr
…=compiler-errors

Add a helper for building an owner id in ast lowering

Just some deduplication of owner-id creations. Will also help me later split up ast lowering into per-owner queries, as it won't be possible anymore to go from a NodeId to a DefId of an owner without doing extra work to check whether we have an owner id. So I'd just do that in the new `owner_id` function and keep the `local_def_id` function free of that logic
@rustbot rustbot added A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs 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. labels Mar 25, 2025
@rustbot rustbot added T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Mar 25, 2025
@TaKO8Ki
Copy link
Member Author

TaKO8Ki commented Mar 25, 2025

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2025

📌 Commit 3757104 has been approved by TaKO8Ki

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 Mar 25, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 25, 2025
Rollup of 9 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#138385 (Keyword tweaks)
 - rust-lang#138580 (resolve: Avoid some unstable iteration 2)
 - rust-lang#138652 (Reintroduce remote-test support in run-make tests)
 - rust-lang#138701 (Make default_codegen_backend serializable)
 - rust-lang#138755 ([rustdoc] Remove duplicated loop when computing doc cfgs)
 - rust-lang#138829 (Slightly reword triagebot ping message for `relnotes-interest-group`)
 - rust-lang#138837 (resolve: Avoid remaining unstable iteration)
 - rust-lang#138838 (Fix/tweak some tests in new solver)
 - rust-lang#138895 (Add a helper for building an owner id in ast lowering)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 3757104 with merge 15df8ec...

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

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

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

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2025

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Mar 25, 2025
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

Job not picked up
@bors retry

@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 Mar 25, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 3757104 with merge 48994b1...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: TaKO8Ki
Pushing 48994b1 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 25, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 48994b1 into rust-lang:master Mar 25, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.87.0 milestone Mar 25, 2025
Copy link

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 7d49ae9 (parent) -> 48994b1 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 30 test diffs
  • [ui] tests/ui/associated-type-bounds/dedup-normalized-2-higher-ranked.rs (stage 2): pass -> [missing] (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/associated-type-bounds/dedup-normalized-2-higher-ranked.rs#current (stage 2): [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/associated-type-bounds/dedup-normalized-2-higher-ranked.rs#next (stage 2): [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/consts/too_generic_eval_ice.rs (stage 2): pass -> [missing] (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/consts/too_generic_eval_ice.rs#current (stage 2): [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/consts/too_generic_eval_ice.rs#next (stage 2): [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/traits/next-solver/well-formed-in-relate.rs (stage 2): [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [ui] tests/ui/associated-type-bounds/dedup-normalized-2-higher-ranked.rs (stage 1): pass -> [missing] (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/associated-type-bounds/dedup-normalized-2-higher-ranked.rs#current (stage 1): [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/associated-type-bounds/dedup-normalized-2-higher-ranked.rs#next (stage 1): [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/consts/too_generic_eval_ice.rs (stage 1): pass -> [missing] (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/consts/too_generic_eval_ice.rs#current (stage 1): [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/consts/too_generic_eval_ice.rs#next (stage 1): [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/traits/next-solver/well-formed-in-relate.rs (stage 1): [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [run-make] tests/run-make/doctests-keep-binaries (stage 2): pass -> ignore (ignored when cross-compiling (attempts to run the doctests)) (J2)
  • [run-make] tests/run-make/target-cpu-native (stage 2): pass -> ignore (ignored when cross-compiling (target-cpu=native doesn't work well when cross compiling)) (J2)

Additionally, 14 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

  • J0: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, test-various, x86_64-apple-2, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-llvm-18-1, x86_64-gnu-llvm-18-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-1, x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1
  • J1: x86_64-gnu-llvm-18-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3
  • J2: arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, dist-various-1, test-various

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR# Message Perf Build Sha
#138385 Keyword tweaks 4ff120c5209d15bda4ece889838f420e985a7834 (link)
#138580 resolve: Avoid some unstable iteration 2 d45504af404107c447cc3ae7cb5588455bb5db76 (link)
#138652 Reintroduce remote-test support in run-make tests fa40b4cb0c4b88ac87a98729db7e9127874347ac (link)
#138701 Make default_codegen_backend serializable 1f807c4142ff21ae5163a6015c98478b48bd24ac (link)
#138755 [rustdoc] Remove duplicated loop when computing doc cfgs 53f6741758b144da0bf816c965d58e370a1b37a6 (link)
#138829 Slightly reword triagebot ping message for `relnotes-intere… fee3de115a5f8100a433bba42c3326aa2bbe6c11 (link)
#138837 resolve: Avoid remaining unstable iteration 6eb94fbe08b4175f51cdfd587260bb7a296587be (link)
#138838 Fix/tweak some tests in new solver d23ab334e8ba7857400fbd0dc1f0c9c585a8b96b (link)
#138895 Add a helper for building an owner id in ast lowering aa1a19c2759cbf32fa3686ec763b4e3a1a727724 (link)

previous master: 7d49ae9731

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

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (48994b1): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.9% [0.2%, 1.4%] 14
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.3% [-0.6%, -0.2%] 10
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.6%, secondary 1.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.6% [0.6%, 4.9%] 15
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.5% [-3.4%, -1.3%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.9% [-5.1%, -2.8%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.441s -> 777.999s (0.07%)
Artifact size: 365.81 MiB -> 365.81 MiB (0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Mar 25, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. 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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.