-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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 bootstrap compiler to 1.61.0 beta #95678
Conversation
Some changes occured to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
41560ce
to
848de4e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
r=me (modulo CI, or significant changes)
If necessary we should feel free to roll back the cfg-checking I think, not try to fix that in this PR in any way. (i.e., even fully disabling is OK IMO). |
848de4e
to
1a2b4a3
Compare
Ok, let's try keeping check-cfg as it was before this PR. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
1a2b4a3
to
9f70a7b
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum rollup=iffy |
📌 Commit 73dc130 has been approved by |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Fixed the distcheck failure, which was caused by rust-lang/cargo#10448. @bors r=Mark-Simulacrum rollup=never |
📌 Commit b500a78 has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit b500a78 with merge f9a429b64b6ea1fa416e6482ba72aafc4a813881... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
Spurious? @bors retry |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (f565016): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
Add unstable `rustc-check-cfg` build script output This PR adds a new build script output as unstable behind `-Zcheck-cfg=output`: `rustc-check-cfg`. ### What does this PR try to resolve? This PR add a way to add to use the unstable `--check-cfg` command line option of `rustc` and `rustdoc`. It was discover in [Bump bootstrap compiler to 1.61.0 beta](rust-lang/rust#95678 (comment)) that `rustc_llvm` sets some custom `cfg` from a build script and because `--check-cfg=values()` is globally enable in the Rust codebase that cause the compilation to fail. For now no values are checked in stage 0 for the entire codebase which is a shame and should be fixed with the addition of this feature. ### How should we test and review this PR? Commits are separated in: implementation, tests and doc. Testing should simply be done by adding a valid `cargo:rustc-check-cfg` in a build script. Watch the added tests or doc to have an example. ### Additional information This PR is also the logical next step after `-Zcheck-cfg-features`.
This PR bumps the bootstrap compiler to the 1.61.0 beta. The first commit changes the stage0 compiler, the second commit applies the "mechanical" changes and the third and fourth commits apply changes explained in the relevant comments.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum