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

Simplify trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together #122450

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Mar 29, 2024

Conversation

Urgau
Copy link
Contributor

@Urgau Urgau commented Mar 13, 2024

This PR simplifies the trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together, as described in #111540 (comment).

And also do some correctness fixes found during the review.

cc @weihanglo
r? @michaelwoerister

@rustbot rustbot added 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 13, 2024
@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR, @Urgau! I think we'll do this, but since this is deviating from the accepted RFC, I want to find out what the procedure is here.

@Urgau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Urgau commented Mar 14, 2024

I think we'll do this, but since this is deviating from the accepted RFC, I want to find out what the procedure is here.

I'm not aware of such procedure. Our RFCs are not normative and it's common to diverged from them in the implementation and experimentation phase.

I would say that as long as we respect the goal of the RFC (as defined in the Summary and Motivation section of the RFC), we are good to adapt the implementation to achieve that goal, particularly here since we are adapting the implementation to match the reality (ie. the current limitation of the tooling and LLVM).

There is also nothing here that would prevent re-introducing the lost options in the future.

So I think we are go to go.

@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

I actually remembered a similar case where I asked about the proceduce:
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Add.20-C.20dlltool.20for.20raw-dylibs.3F

Let's make sure we document what we are doing on the tracking issue an mention it in the stabilization FCP, then we should indeed be good.

@Urgau Urgau force-pushed the simplify-trim-paths-feature branch from 23601a6 to 84e54cd Compare March 15, 2024 17:25
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 15, 2024

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 18, 2024

Some changes occurred in coverage instrumentation.

cc @Zalathar

Some changes occurred in run-make tests.

cc @jieyouxu

Some changes occurred in coverage instrumentation.

cc @Zalathar

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@Urgau Urgau force-pushed the simplify-trim-paths-feature branch 2 times, most recently from 4cfbe65 to fe8e0d6 Compare March 18, 2024 20:43
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 19, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #122713) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@Urgau Urgau force-pushed the simplify-trim-paths-feature branch from fe8e0d6 to e12220d Compare March 19, 2024 07:00
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@Urgau Urgau force-pushed the simplify-trim-paths-feature branch from 6e19ace to 342e15d Compare March 19, 2024 12:42
@rustbot rustbot added the WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative label Mar 19, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 19, 2024

Some changes occurred to the core trait solver

cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2024

📌 Commit f2a2c4c has been approved by michaelwoerister

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 27, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #123166) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@bors bors 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-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Mar 28, 2024
@Urgau Urgau force-pushed the simplify-trim-paths-feature branch from f2a2c4c to fefb8f1 Compare March 28, 2024 17:51
@Urgau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Urgau commented Mar 28, 2024

Rebased (and fix some typos).

@rustbot ready

@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 28, 2024
@michaelwoerister
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 29, 2024

📌 Commit fefb8f1 has been approved by michaelwoerister

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 29, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 29, 2024

⌛ Testing commit fefb8f1 with merge 685927a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 29, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: michaelwoerister
Pushing 685927a to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 29, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 685927a into rust-lang:master Mar 29, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.79.0 milestone Mar 29, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (685927a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 668.043s -> 667.959s (-0.01%)
Artifact size: 315.85 MiB -> 315.84 MiB (-0.00%)

bjorn3 pushed a commit to bjorn3/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 5, 2024
…=michaelwoerister

Simplify trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together

This PR simplifies the trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together, as described in rust-lang#111540 (comment).

And also do some correctness fixes found during the review.

cc `@weihanglo`
r? `@michaelwoerister`
smoelius added a commit to trailofbits/dylint that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2024
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit to trailofbits/dylint that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2024
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. 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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants