Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
bootstrap: Allow building individual crates - #95503
Merged
Merged
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Mar 30, 2022
Contributor
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
jyn514
commented
Mar 30, 2022
MemberAuthor
@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-review +S-block |
jyn514
commented
Mar 30, 2022
MemberAuthor
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-review +S-blocked |
jyn514
commented
Mar 30, 2022
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
jyn514
marked this pull request as draft
March 30, 2022 22:43
jyn514 added a commit
to jyn514/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 30, 2022
While working on rust-lang#95503, I realized that this will interfere with existing command lines: Currently people run `x build library/std` expecting it to be added to the sysroot, but after that change, it will *only* build `libstd` without making it available for the toolchain. It's debatable whether that's a breaking change that will be accepted; if so, this PR is absolutely necessary to make sure there's a command for "build the standard library and add it to the sysroot". Even if not, though, I think `x build library` is more clear about what actually happens than the current `x build library/std`. For consistency, also add support for `compiler` and all other command variants. Note that `doc compiler` was already supported, so in a sense this is just fixing an existing inconsistency. I plan to change the dev-guide and various instructions in the README to `build library` once this is merged.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
bors
commented
Apr 10, 2022
Collaborator
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #95502) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
jyn514
commented
Apr 10, 2022
MemberAuthor
@rustbot label -S-blocked +S-waiting-on-author |
jyn514
marked this pull request as ready for review
April 11, 2022 00:07
jyn514
commented
Apr 11, 2022
MemberAuthor
@rustbot ready |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This makes it much simpler to add new interned types, rather than having to add 4+ impl blocks for each type.
- Add `Interned<Vec<String>>` and use it for tail args - Refactor `cache.rs` not to need a separate impl for each internable type
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Jul 3, 2022
Member
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Jul 3, 2022
Collaborator
📌 Commit d0011b0 has been approved by |
bors added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 5, 2022
…laumeGomez Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#95503 (bootstrap: Allow building individual crates) - rust-lang#96814 (Fix repr(align) enum handling) - rust-lang#98256 (Fix whitespace handling after where clause) - rust-lang#98880 (Proper macOS libLLVM symlink when cross compiling) - rust-lang#98944 (Edit `rustc_mir_dataflow::framework::lattice::FlatSet` docs) - rust-lang#98951 (Update books) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
jyn514 added a commit
to jyn514/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2022
Since rust-lang/rust#95503, `library/std` means "build just std and its dependencies"; to get the old behavior that built `proc_macro` and `test`, you need `x build library`. - Update `library/std` to `library` - Remove the `-i` suggestions; `incremental = true` is already the default for most profiles, in which case `-i` does nothing. If you don't have incremental enabled, I still think suggesting `-i` is bad idea, because it's easy to forget once, at which point you'll end up rebuilding the whole compiler / standard library. - Remove a few repetitive sections and don't discuss incremental in such detail Incremental works well enough that it should "just work" for most people; I don't think it needs multiple paragraphs of explanation so early in the guide. - Clarify that `test library/std` *only* tests libstd in a few places
tshepang pushed a commit
to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2022
Since rust-lang/rust#95503, `library/std` means "build just std and its dependencies"; to get the old behavior that built `proc_macro` and `test`, you need `x build library`. - Update `library/std` to `library` - Remove the `-i` suggestions; `incremental = true` is already the default for most profiles, in which case `-i` does nothing. If you don't have incremental enabled, I still think suggesting `-i` is bad idea, because it's easy to forget once, at which point you'll end up rebuilding the whole compiler / standard library. - Remove a few repetitive sections and don't discuss incremental in such detail Incremental works well enough that it should "just work" for most people; I don't think it needs multiple paragraphs of explanation so early in the guide. - Clarify that `test library/std` *only* tests libstd in a few places
Kobzol pushed a commit
to Kobzol/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 30, 2024
Since rust-lang#95503, `library/std` means "build just std and its dependencies"; to get the old behavior that built `proc_macro` and `test`, you need `x build library`. - Update `library/std` to `library` - Remove the `-i` suggestions; `incremental = true` is already the default for most profiles, in which case `-i` does nothing. If you don't have incremental enabled, I still think suggesting `-i` is bad idea, because it's easy to forget once, at which point you'll end up rebuilding the whole compiler / standard library. - Remove a few repetitive sections and don't discuss incremental in such detail Incremental works well enough that it should "just work" for most people; I don't think it needs multiple paragraphs of explanation so early in the guide. - Clarify that `test library/std` *only* tests libstd in a few places
bors pushed a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2025
Since rust-lang#95503, `library/std` means "build just std and its dependencies"; to get the old behavior that built `proc_macro` and `test`, you need `x build library`. - Update `library/std` to `library` - Remove the `-i` suggestions; `incremental = true` is already the default for most profiles, in which case `-i` does nothing. If you don't have incremental enabled, I still think suggesting `-i` is bad idea, because it's easy to forget once, at which point you'll end up rebuilding the whole compiler / standard library. - Remove a few repetitive sections and don't discuss incremental in such detail Incremental works well enough that it should "just work" for most people; I don't think it needs multiple paragraphs of explanation so early in the guide. - Clarify that `test library/std` *only* tests libstd in a few places
Kobzol pushed a commit
to Kobzol/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2025
Since rust-lang/rust#95503, `library/std` means "build just std and its dependencies"; to get the old behavior that built `proc_macro` and `test`, you need `x build library`. - Update `library/std` to `library` - Remove the `-i` suggestions; `incremental = true` is already the default for most profiles, in which case `-i` does nothing. If you don't have incremental enabled, I still think suggesting `-i` is bad idea, because it's easy to forget once, at which point you'll end up rebuilding the whole compiler / standard library. - Remove a few repetitive sections and don't discuss incremental in such detail Incremental works well enough that it should "just work" for most people; I don't think it needs multiple paragraphs of explanation so early in the guide. - Clarify that `test library/std` *only* tests libstd in a few places
jyn514 added a commit
to jyn514/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2026
Some history about `paths()`. The original intent @Mark-Simulacrum had when he introduced PathSet, to my knowledge, was that multiple paths could be aliases for the same step. That's what rustdoc is doing; both paths for rustdoc run exactly the same Step, regardless of whether one or both are present. That never really caught on. To my knowledge, rustdoc is the only usage of paths() there's ever been. Later, in rust-lang#95503, I repurposed PathSet to mean "each crate in this set should be passed to Step::make_run in RunConfig". That was not the previous meaning. Rustdoc never looks at run.paths in make_run, so it's safe to just treat it as an alias, like elsewhere in bootstrap. Same for all the other tool steps.
JonathanBrouwer added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2026
bootstrap: Remove `ShouldRun::paths` Split out from rust-lang#151930. I've copied my comment in rust-lang#151930 (comment) into the commit description. r? @Zalathar cc @Mark-Simulacrum@Kobzol --- Some history about `paths()`. The original intent @Mark-Simulacrum had when he introduced PathSet in rust-lang@f104b12, to my knowledge, was that multiple paths could be aliases for the same step. That's what rustdoc is doing; both paths for rustdoc run exactly the same Step, regardless of whether one or both are present. That never really caught on. To my knowledge, rustdoc is the only usage of paths() there's ever been. Later, in rust-lang#95503, I repurposed PathSet to mean "each crate in this set should be passed to Step::make_run in RunConfig". That was not the previous meaning. Rustdoc never looks at run.paths in make_run, so it's safe to just treat it as an alias, like elsewhere in bootstrap. Same for all the other tool steps.
JonathanBrouwer added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2026
bootstrap: Remove `ShouldRun::paths` Split out from rust-lang#151930. I've copied my comment in rust-lang#151930 (comment) into the commit description. r? @Zalathar cc @Mark-Simulacrum@Kobzol --- Some history about `paths()`. The original intent @Mark-Simulacrum had when he introduced PathSet in rust-lang@f104b12, to my knowledge, was that multiple paths could be aliases for the same step. That's what rustdoc is doing; both paths for rustdoc run exactly the same Step, regardless of whether one or both are present. That never really caught on. To my knowledge, rustdoc is the only usage of paths() there's ever been. Later, in rust-lang#95503, I repurposed PathSet to mean "each crate in this set should be passed to Step::make_run in RunConfig". That was not the previous meaning. Rustdoc never looks at run.paths in make_run, so it's safe to just treat it as an alias, like elsewhere in bootstrap. Same for all the other tool steps.
JonathanBrouwer added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2026
bootstrap: Remove `ShouldRun::paths` Split out from rust-lang#151930. I've copied my comment in rust-lang#151930 (comment) into the commit description. r? @Zalathar cc @Mark-Simulacrum@Kobzol --- Some history about `paths()`. The original intent @Mark-Simulacrum had when he introduced PathSet in rust-lang@f104b12, to my knowledge, was that multiple paths could be aliases for the same step. That's what rustdoc is doing; both paths for rustdoc run exactly the same Step, regardless of whether one or both are present. That never really caught on. To my knowledge, rustdoc is the only usage of paths() there's ever been. Later, in rust-lang#95503, I repurposed PathSet to mean "each crate in this set should be passed to Step::make_run in RunConfig". That was not the previous meaning. Rustdoc never looks at run.paths in make_run, so it's safe to just treat it as an alias, like elsewhere in bootstrap. Same for all the other tool steps.
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.
This aims to be as unintrusive as possible, but did still require adding a new
tail_argsfield to allRustcandStdsteps.New library and compiler crates are added to the sysroot as they are built, since it's useful to have e.g. just alloc and not std.
Fixes#44293.