-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.6k
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
ignore llvm::Lld
if lld is not enabled
#126701
Conversation
People are having trouble when they don't want to build `lld` for their custom distribution tarballs even with `lld = false` in their config.toml. This is because it is not controlled by `lld_enabled` flag. This change ensures that `llvm:Lld` is controlled by lld configuration. Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <[email protected]>
r? @clubby789 rustbot has assigned @clubby789. Use |
This PR modifies If appropriate, please update |
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
4379d3c
to
7aec1b0
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
7aec1b0
to
bfca652
Compare
r? @Kobzol |
This is a good cleanup, it should be possible to turn packaging of @bors try |
…try> ignore `llvm::Lld` if lld is not enabled People are having trouble ([ref. zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/MSVC.20Runtime.20mismatch.20when.20building.20LLD)) when they don't want to build `lld` for their custom distribution tarballs even with `lld = false` in their config.toml. This is because it is not controlled by `lld_enabled` flag. This change ensures that `llvm:Lld` is controlled by lld configuration. Additionally, `lld = true` is set by default for dist profile, because we have been building it all along and this maintains that behavior.
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
Good, One more thing, maybe we should add an entry to config tracker? Maybe some people who do their own |
b78b5ff
to
6b5efe9
Compare
6b5efe9
to
b1b473e
Compare
Thanks! @bors r+ |
…=Kobzol ignore `llvm::Lld` if lld is not enabled People are having trouble ([ref. zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/MSVC.20Runtime.20mismatch.20when.20building.20LLD)) when they don't want to build `lld` for their custom distribution tarballs even with `lld = false` in their config.toml. This is because it is not controlled by `lld_enabled` flag. This change ensures that `llvm:Lld` is controlled by lld configuration. Additionally, `lld = true` is set by default for dist profile, because we have been building it all along and this maintains that behavior.
It was ignored because of |
Ah so likely yet another case of rust-lld was only enabled on some dist builders and no test builder. Probably something like that directive yes, or maybe even more precise à la x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, as IIUC there are a bunch of other msvc targets that may not have rust-lld support (or where it's distributed though I guess needs-rust-lld will take care of that). But I know nothing about windows and this may need the eyes of e.g. Chris Denton. That is, if the test actually still passes and hasn't regressed since it was written :/ Maybe you can try it on x64 msvc and it it fails ping Chris the expert? |
The test has succeeded on |
great then |
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <[email protected]>
…try> ignore `llvm::Lld` if lld is not enabled People are having trouble ([ref. zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/MSVC.20Runtime.20mismatch.20when.20building.20LLD)) when they don't want to build `lld` for their custom distribution tarballs even with `lld = false` in their config.toml. This is because it is not controlled by `lld_enabled` flag. This change ensures that `llvm:Lld` is controlled by lld configuration. Additionally, `lld = true` is set by default for dist profile, because we have been building it all along and this maintains that behavior. try-job: x86_64-mingw
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
@bors r+ rollup=never |
@bors r=Kobzol |
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
oops, didn't see that |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (e9e6e2e): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -3.1%, secondary -5.2%)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.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 696.756s -> 694.621s (-0.31%) |
Add a run-make test that LLD is not being used by default on the x64 beta/stable channel rust-lang#126701 showed that the handling of `lld` in bootstrap is currently not ideal. While it would be nice to refactor it eventually, we should also make sure that we have a test that checks that `lld` is not used (yet!) by default on the x64 Linux stable channel. CC `@lqd` r? `@onur-ozkan`
Add a run-make test that LLD is not being used by default on the x64 beta/stable channel rust-lang#126701 showed that the handling of `lld` in bootstrap is currently not ideal. While it would be nice to refactor it eventually, we should also make sure that we have a test that checks that `lld` is not used (yet!) by default on the x64 Linux stable channel. CC ``@lqd`` r? ``@onur-ozkan``
Rollup merge of rust-lang#127081 - Kobzol:lld-test, r=onur-ozkan Add a run-make test that LLD is not being used by default on the x64 beta/stable channel rust-lang#126701 showed that the handling of `lld` in bootstrap is currently not ideal. While it would be nice to refactor it eventually, we should also make sure that we have a test that checks that `lld` is not used (yet!) by default on the x64 Linux stable channel. CC ``@lqd`` r? ``@onur-ozkan``
People are having trouble (ref. zulip thread) when they don't want to build
lld
for their custom distribution tarballs even withlld = false
in their config.toml. This is because it is not controlled bylld_enabled
flag. This change ensures thatllvm:Lld
is controlled by lld configuration.Additionally,
lld = true
is set by default for dist profile, because we have been building it all along and this maintains that behavior.try-job: x86_64-mingw