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

Rollup of 5 pull requests #131536

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

alexcrichton and others added 10 commits October 9, 2024 13:21
This pulls in a bug fix relative to the 0.5.9 release which was
updated-to recently.
When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this
makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed.

(The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as
the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but
it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps,
and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
…-ld, r=jieyouxu

Update wasm-component-ld to 0.5.10

This pulls in a bug fix relative to the 0.5.9 release which was updated-to recently.
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps

When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed.

(The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps, and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)

Extracted from rust-lang#131398, since I'm still considering whether to make those changes as-is, whereas this PR is useful and good on its own.
Fixing rustDoc for LayoutError.

I started reading the the std lib from start to finish and noticed that this rustdoc comment wasn't correct.
…TheVoid

rustdoc-json-types: fix typo in comment
…bzol

move dummy commit logic into x86_64-gnu-llvm-18

Doing the dummy commit logic in a runner that uses CI-LLVM breaks in merge CI. This should be properly fixed by rust-lang#131358 (see the [actual problem](rust-lang#131448 (comment))). Since we can also fix it by moving the dummy commit into the runner where we use in-tree LLVM, so why not do that as well?
@rustbot rustbot added A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend 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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Oct 11, 2024
@Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 11, 2024

📌 Commit e530491 has been approved by Zalathar

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 Oct 11, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 11, 2024

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

  1. git checkout rollup-4s67kpq (switch to your branch)
  2. git fetch upstream master (retrieve the latest master)
  3. git rebase upstream/master -p (rebase on top of it)
  4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
  5. git push self rollup-4s67kpq --force-with-lease (update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message
CONFLICT (modify/delete): tests/coverage/thin-lto.cov-map deleted in HEAD and modified in heads/homu-tmp. Version heads/homu-tmp of tests/coverage/thin-lto.cov-map left in tree.
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

@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 Oct 11, 2024
@Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like #131476 needs a rebase/bless.

@Zalathar Zalathar closed this Oct 11, 2024
@Zalathar Zalathar deleted the rollup-4s67kpq branch October 11, 2024 10:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants