Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add LLVM skip-rebuild option to x.py - #67437
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 19, 2019
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 19, 2019
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
matthew-healy
commented
Dec 20, 2019
I think the build failed for reasons unrelated to the changes. Could someone with powers retry it for me? |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Dec 20, 2019
Shouldn't matter too much, it's just the PR build -- the main PR builder (llvm-7) passed anyway. I will however do r? @Mark-Simulacrum as it's likely I'll be the reviewer here not Niko; I'll try to get to this soon. |
Mark-Simulacrum
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r=me with nits fixed
I don't personally agree with having this option as it seems strictly worse to get spurious LLVM bugs due to not rebuilding it, but since people seem to want it, I'm not opposed either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| #skip-rebuild = true | |
| #skip-rebuild = false |
This should indicate the default value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please inline default here. I'm not sure why LLVM asserts below have it pulled out (no need to change that in this PR).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I also thought this was a bit odd, but decided to stick to the pattern that was there. Will fix this now. Thanks! 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should use language similar to --keep-stage here.
| builder.info("Skipping LLVM rebuild"); | |
| builder.info("Warning: Using a potentially old LLVM; this may not behave well."); |
matthew-healy
commented
Dec 22, 2019
@Mark-Simulacrum I think I've addressed your feedback. Let me know if you need anything else. |
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 22, 2019
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Dec 22, 2019
r=me with the tidy failure fixed |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Dec 23, 2019
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Dec 23, 2019
📌 Commit 522f977 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Dec 23, 2019
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100, this pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened |
…Mark-Simulacrum Add LLVM `skip-rebuild` option to `x.py` This PR reimplements parts of @Walther's work from rust-lang#65848, and closesrust-lang#65612. I decided not to implement the [arguments to override this setting](rust-lang#65612 (comment)) in this PR. If there's strong feeling that this change shouldn't be merged without the overrides then I'm happy to close this until I've had a chance to add them in. Otherwise I'll aim to submit a second PR with those this weekend. I'd have liked to have tested the change in `native.rs`, but there didn't seem to be any existing test infrastructure. I ran this a few times manually and it _worked on my machine_ though... 😬
aidanhs
commented
Dec 24, 2019
@bors r- Tidy failure in the rollup |
matthew-healy
commented
Dec 25, 2019
I don't know enough about how rollups work to know why there'd be a tidy issue there and not when I run it locally, but I've reformatted it to match @aidanhs' comment. |
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 25, 2019
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Dec 25, 2019
Looks like rustfmt wants a comma at the end. You might be able to observe the failure locally by rebasing atop master before running tidy. |
matthew-healy
commented
Dec 26, 2019
@Mark-Simulacrum Thank you! Should be fixed now. |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Dec 27, 2019
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Dec 27, 2019
📌 Commit e44fc45 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Dec 27, 2019
…crum Add LLVM `skip-rebuild` option to `x.py` This PR reimplements parts of @Walther's work from #65848, and closes#65612. I decided not to implement the [arguments to override this setting](#65612 (comment)) in this PR. If there's strong feeling that this change shouldn't be merged without the overrides then I'm happy to close this until I've had a chance to add them in. Otherwise I'll aim to submit a second PR with those this weekend. I'd have liked to have tested the change in `native.rs`, but there didn't seem to be any existing test infrastructure. I ran this a few times manually and it _worked on my machine_ though... 😬
bors
commented
Dec 27, 2019
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
…ion, r=Centril Add `llvm-skip-rebuild` flag to `x.py` This PR follows on from rust-lang#67437 to complete the feature request from rust-lang#65612. Specifically it adds a new command-line flag, `--llvm-skip-rebuild`, which overrides both any value set in `config.toml` and the default value (`false`). I'm not 100% confident that I've implemented the override in the "best" way, but I've checked it locally and it seems to work at least. This option isn't currently mentioned in the Guide to Rustc Development. I'd be happy to write something on it if folk think that's worthwhile.
…ion, r=Centril Add `llvm-skip-rebuild` flag to `x.py` This PR follows on from rust-lang#67437 to complete the feature request from rust-lang#65612. Specifically it adds a new command-line flag, `--llvm-skip-rebuild`, which overrides both any value set in `config.toml` and the default value (`false`). I'm not 100% confident that I've implemented the override in the "best" way, but I've checked it locally and it seems to work at least. This option isn't currently mentioned in the Guide to Rustc Development. I'd be happy to write something on it if folk think that's worthwhile.
This PR reimplements parts of @Walther's work from #65848, and closes#65612.
I decided not to implement the arguments to override this setting in this PR. If there's strong feeling that this change shouldn't be merged without the overrides then I'm happy to close this until I've had a chance to add them in. Otherwise I'll aim to submit a second PR with those this weekend.
I'd have liked to have tested the change in
native.rs, but there didn't seem to be any existing test infrastructure. I ran this a few times manually and it worked on my machine though... 😬