Skip to content

Conversation

Stargateur
Copy link
Contributor

@Stargateur Stargateur commented Jul 24, 2023

First try to fix #108277 without break anything.

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but ./x check --all-targets doesn't seem to use them.

TODO:

  • better error
  • test, how ?

@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2023

r? @thomcc

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 24, 2023
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@Stargateur Stargateur marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2023 03:43
@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Jul 29, 2023

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but ./x check --all-targets doesn't seem to use them.

I don't think --all-targets is right, I think you need to check each --target individually? Note that it does need to be check, and you may need to ensure the llvm submodule is not checked out (this may have been fixed).

@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 22, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 21, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #115230) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@rustbot rustbot added the O-unix Operating system: Unix-like label Sep 22, 2023
@Stargateur
Copy link
Contributor Author

Stargateur commented Sep 22, 2023

I got no idea how to remove git submodule change from a commit, I don't even know why it's added git submodule change when I didn't commit any submodule change... I hate git submodules so hard.

After one hour finally remove somehow the git submodules change.

@Stargateur Stargateur force-pushed the 108277 branch 2 times, most recently from 49b8bfe to 1eb1559 Compare September 22, 2023 02:33
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 24, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #116238) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Feb 1, 2024

I'm going to be away for a few months, so I'm rerolling my PRs so that folks don't have to wait for me. Sorry/thanks.

r? libs

@rustbot rustbot assigned m-ou-se and unassigned thomcc Feb 1, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Feb 12, 2024
@m-ou-se m-ou-se added S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 15, 2024
@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton assigned ChrisDenton and unassigned m-ou-se Feb 21, 2024
@ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member

Hi @Stargateur, could you rebase this PR please?

@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). labels Feb 25, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Mar 6, 2024
@ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member

ChrisDenton commented Mar 14, 2024

looks good to me, thanks!

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

📌 Commit 408c0ea has been approved by ChrisDenton

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 14, 2024
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
unix time module now return result

First try to fix rust-lang#108277 without break anything.

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but `./x check --all-targets` doesn't seem to use them.

TODO:

- [x] better error
- [ ] test, how ?

`@rustbot` label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 11 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#104353 (Add CStr::bytes iterator)
 - rust-lang#114038 (unix time module now return result)
 - rust-lang#119676 (rustdoc-search: search types by higher-order functions)
 - rust-lang#120699 (Document `TRACK_DIAGNOSTIC` calls.)
 - rust-lang#121899 (Document how removing a type's field can be bad and what to do instead)
 - rust-lang#121940 (Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`)
 - rust-lang#122397 (Various cleanups around the const eval query providers)
 - rust-lang#122405 (Add methods to create StableMIR constant)
 - rust-lang#122416 (Various style improvements to `rustc_lint::levels`)
 - rust-lang#122440 (const-eval: organize and extend tests for required-consts)
 - rust-lang#122461 (fix unsoundness in Step::forward_unchecked for signed integers)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
unix time module now return result

First try to fix rust-lang#108277 without break anything.

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but `./x check --all-targets` doesn't seem to use them.

TODO:

- [x] better error
- [ ] test, how ?

``@rustbot`` label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 408c0ea with merge e69f14b...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: ChrisDenton
Pushing e69f14b to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 14, 2024
@bors bors merged commit e69f14b into rust-lang:master Mar 14, 2024
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 14, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e69f14b): 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

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)
2.9% [2.9%, 2.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.5% [-6.0%, -2.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.9% [-6.0%, 2.9%] 4

Cycles

Results

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)
3.6% [2.5%, 4.4%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 669.949s -> 669.429s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 310.79 MiB -> 310.79 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. O-unix Operating system: Unix-like S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

std::fs::Metadata timestamp methods will panic on files with invalid timestamp nsec values
10 participants