Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Revert "bootstrap: print{ln}! -> eprint{ln}! (take 2) #134040" - #134207
Merged
Conversation
rustbot
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Collaborator
This PR modifies If appropriate, please update |
Zalathar
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Member
I'm sad about it, but I think this is the right call. When I fixed the cargo JSON issue, I was hopeful that it would be the last problem. But if new subtleties keep popping up, we have to respect the fact that making this kind of sweeping change to bootstrap and friends is not viable in their current state. |
MemberAuthor
Part of the problem is that bootstrap and friends don't properly lock their stderr and stdout streams, and use |
lqd
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2024
jieyouxu
commented
Dec 12, 2024
MemberAuthor
bors
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Collaborator
bors added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2024
Revert "bootstrap: print{ln}! -> eprint{ln}! (take 2) rust-lang#134040"
Unfortunately, rust-lang#134040 is proving to have caused more output interleaving problems that are tricky to diagnose and fix, and I think we probably should leave these untouched as bootstrap and compiletest has a bunch of interconnecting parts, and the commands and tools that they exercise do not consistently use stderr/stdout either. This causes hard-to-diagnose output interleaving bugs, which unfortunately degrades contributor experience.
This PR reverts two PRs in order to cleanly revert rust-lang#134040:
1. Revert rust-lang#134123 which is a fix-forward after rust-lang#134040.
2. Revert rust-lang#134040 itself.
I don't regret the initial effort `@clubby789,` and thank you for making the attempts, but I think we need to refrain from touching too many of these at once because some of the interleaving are very non-obvious and we don't have test coverage for.
r? `@clubby789`
cc `@Zalathar`bors
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Collaborator
rust-log-analyzer
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Collaborator
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
bors
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Collaborator
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
clubby789
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Contributor
Guessing this is spurious as its a revert |
jieyouxu
commented
Dec 12, 2024
MemberAuthor
SIGSEGV in building cg_llvm is not what I had in mind. |
bors added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#133122 (Add unpolished, experimental support for AFIDT (async fn in dyn trait)) - rust-lang#133249 (ABI checks: add support for loongarch) - rust-lang#134089 (Use newly added exceptions to non default branch warning) - rust-lang#134188 (Bump Fuchsia) - rust-lang#134204 (Fix our `llvm::Bool` typedef to be signed, to match `LLVMBool`) - rust-lang#134207 (Revert "bootstrap: print{ln}! -> eprint{ln}! (take 2) rust-lang#134040") - rust-lang#134214 (rustdoc: fix self cmp) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134207 - jieyouxu:revert-134040, r=lqd Revert "bootstrap: print{ln}! -> eprint{ln}! (take 2) rust-lang#134040" Unfortunately, rust-lang#134040 is proving to have caused more output interleaving problems that are tricky to diagnose and fix, and I think we probably should leave these untouched as bootstrap and compiletest has a bunch of interconnecting parts, and the commands and tools that they exercise do not consistently use stderr/stdout either. This causes hard-to-diagnose output interleaving bugs, which unfortunately degrades contributor experience. This PR reverts two PRs in order to cleanly revert rust-lang#134040: 1. Revert rust-lang#134123 which is a fix-forward after rust-lang#134040. 2. Revert rust-lang#134040 itself. I don't regret the initial effort `@clubby789,` and thank you for making the attempts, but I think we need to refrain from touching too many of these at once because some of the interleaving are very non-obvious and we don't have test coverage for. r? `@clubby789` cc `@Zalathar`
bors
commented
Dec 12, 2024
Collaborator
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Unfortunately, #134040 is proving to have caused more output interleaving problems that are tricky to diagnose and fix, and I think we probably should leave these untouched as bootstrap and compiletest has a bunch of interconnecting parts, and the commands and tools that they exercise do not consistently use stderr/stdout either. This causes hard-to-diagnose output interleaving bugs, which unfortunately degrades contributor experience.
This PR reverts two PRs in order to cleanly revert #134040:
I don't regret the initial effort @clubby789, and thank you for making the attempts, but I think we need to refrain from touching too many of these at once because some of the interleaving are very non-obvious and we don't have test coverage for.
r? @clubby789
cc @Zalathar