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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Allow older LLVM versions to have missing components #110232

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 25, 2023
Merged

Allow older LLVM versions to have missing components #110232

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 25, 2023

Conversation

Amanieu
Copy link
Member

@Amanieu Amanieu commented Apr 12, 2023

This check was introduced by #77280 to ensure that all tests that are filtered by LLVM component are actually tested in CI. However this causes issues for new targets (e.g. #101069) where support is only available on the latest LLVM version.

This PR restricts the tests to only CI jobs that use the latest LLVM version.

@Amanieu
Allow older LLVM versions to have missing components
7e8611b 
This check was introduced by rust-lang#77280 to ensure that all tests that are
filtered by LLVM component are actually tested in CI. However this
causes issues for new targets (e.g. rust-lang#101069) where support is only
available on the latest LLVM version.

This PR restricts the tests to only CI jobs that use the latest LLVM
version.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 12, 2023

r? @pietroalbini

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Apr 12, 2023
@Amanieu Amanieu mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2023
Merged
heiher
heiher approved these changes Apr 19, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@heiher heiher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on my testing, I can confirm that this patch is functioning properly. Would it be possible to merge it into the codebase in order to unblock #101069 ? Thank you very much for your help.

@Amanieu
Copy link
Member Author

Amanieu commented Apr 23, 2023

r? @petrochenkov

@rustbot rustbot assigned petrochenkov and unassigned pietroalbini Apr 23, 2023
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 24, 2023

📌 Commit 7e8611b has been approved by petrochenkov

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 Apr 24, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 25, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 7e8611b with merge f6830a2...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 25, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing f6830a2 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 25, 2023
@bors bors merged commit f6830a2 into rust-lang:master Apr 25, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.71.0 milestone Apr 25, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (f6830a2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - 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
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.7% [-2.8%, -0.7%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -6.0% [-7.5%, -4.9%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.7% [-2.8%, -0.7%] 4

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.0% [2.0%, 2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -1.8% [-2.6%, -0.9%] 4
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.8% [-2.6%, -0.9%] 4

Cycles

Results

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 4.0% [4.0%, 4.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.4% [-4.1%, -2.3%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@heiher heiher heiher approved these changes

Assignees

@petrochenkov petrochenkov

Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc 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-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.71.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@Amanieu @rustbot @petrochenkov @bors @rust-timer @heiher @pietroalbini