appveyor: Upgrade MinGW toolchains we use #40777
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
r? @aturon (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
This may be affected by #40184 |
|
Bah looks like it, investigating a fix. |
alexcrichton
force-pushed
the
update-mingw-compilers
branch
from
ecbd899 to
32bf7e7
Compare
|
Added what I believe is a fix for #40184 |
|
r=me, fire when ready. |
|
@bors: r=aturon p=1 (p=1 as this is fixing spurious failures) |
|
📌 Commit 32bf7e7 has been approved by |
alexcrichton
force-pushed
the
update-mingw-compilers
branch
from
32bf7e7 to
3427d01
Compare
|
@bors: r=aturon |
|
📌 Commit 3427d01 has been approved by |
In debugging rust-lang#40546 I was able to reproduce locally finally using the literal toolchain that the bots were using. I reproduced the error maybe 4 in 10 builds. I also have the 6.3.0 toolchain installed through `pacman` which has yet to have a failed build. When attempting to reproduce the bug with the toolchain that this commit switches to I was unable to reproduce anything after a few builds. I have no idea what the original problem was, but I'm hoping that it was just some random bug fixed somewhere along the way. I don't currently know of a technical reason to stick to the 4.9.2 toolchains we were previously using. Historcal 5.3.* toolchains would cause llvm to segfault (maybe a miscompile?) but this seems to have been fixed recently. To me if it passes CI then I think we're good. Closes rust-lang#40546
alexcrichton
force-pushed
the
update-mingw-compilers
branch
from
3427d01 to
e6e8c91
Compare
|
@bors: r=aturon |
|
📌 Commit e6e8c91 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2017
appveyor: Upgrade MinGW toolchains we use In debugging #40546 I was able to reproduce locally finally using the literal toolchain that the bots were using. I reproduced the error maybe 4 in 10 builds. I also have the 6.3.0 toolchain installed through `pacman` which has yet to have a failed build. When attempting to reproduce the bug with the toolchain that this commit switches to I was unable to reproduce anything after a few builds. I have no idea what the original problem was, but I'm hoping that it was just some random bug fixed somewhere along the way. I don't currently know of a technical reason to stick to the 4.9.2 toolchains we were previously using. Historcal 5.3.* toolchains would cause llvm to segfault (maybe a miscompile?) but this seems to have been fixed recently. To me if it passes CI then I think we're good. Closes #40546
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2017
It looks like the 6.3.0 MinGW comes with a gdb which has issues (rust-lang#40184) that an attempted workaround (rust-lang#40777) does not actually fix (rust-lang#40835). The original motivation for upgradin MinGW was to fix build flakiness (rust-lang#40546) due to newer builds not exhibiting the same bug, so let's hope that 6.2.0 isn't too far back in time and still contains the fix we need. Closes rust-lang#40835
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2017
…elb1 appveyor: Downgrade MinGW to 6.2.0 It looks like the 6.3.0 MinGW comes with a gdb which has issues (rust-lang#40184) that an attempted workaround (rust-lang#40777) does not actually fix (rust-lang#40835). The original motivation for upgradin MinGW was to fix build flakiness (rust-lang#40546) due to newer builds not exhibiting the same bug, so let's hope that 6.2.0 isn't too far back in time and still contains the fix we need. Closes rust-lang#40835
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2017
This commit sort of brings back rust-lang#40777 by upgrading back to 6.3.0. While investigating rust-lang#40546 it was discovered that 6.3.0 appears to not spurious fail in the same way that 6.2.0 does (which we're currently using). The workaround for rust-lang#40184 contained in rust-lang#40777 did not work so this commit also contains a different workaround for the gdb issue. We will not download the 6.2.0 version of gdb and use that instead of the default version that comes with 6.3.0. I'm going to optimistically say... Closes rust-lang#40546
arielb1
pushed a commit
to arielb1/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2017
…enkov appveyor: Upgrade to gcc for mingw 6.3.0 This commit sort of brings back rust-lang#40777 by upgrading back to 6.3.0. While investigating rust-lang#40546 it was discovered that 6.3.0 appears to not spurious fail in the same way that 6.2.0 does (which we're currently using). The workaround for rust-lang#40184 contained in rust-lang#40777 did not work so this commit also contains a different workaround for the gdb issue. We will not download the 6.2.0 version of gdb and use that instead of the default version that comes with 6.3.0. I'm going to optimistically say... Closes rust-lang#40546
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2017
This commit sort of brings back rust-lang#40777 by upgrading back to 6.3.0. While investigating rust-lang#40546 it was discovered that 6.3.0 appears to not spurious fail in the same way that 6.2.0 does (which we're currently using). The workaround for rust-lang#40184 contained in rust-lang#40777 did not work so this commit also contains a different workaround for the gdb issue. We will not download the 6.2.0 version of gdb and use that instead of the default version that comes with 6.3.0. I'm going to optimistically say... Closes rust-lang#40546
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 26, 2017
appveyor: Upgrade to gcc for mingw 6.3.0 This commit sort of brings back #40777 by upgrading back to 6.3.0. While investigating #40546 it was discovered that 6.3.0 appears to not spurious fail in the same way that 6.2.0 does (which we're currently using). The workaround for #40184 contained in #40777 did not work so this commit also contains a different workaround for the gdb issue. We will not download the 6.2.0 version of gdb and use that instead of the default version that comes with 6.3.0. I'm going to optimistically say... Closes #40546
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
In debugging #40546 I was able to reproduce locally finally using
the literal toolchain that the bots were using. I reproduced the error maybe 4
in 10 builds. I also have the 6.3.0 toolchain installed through
pacmanwhichhas yet to have a failed build.
When attempting to reproduce the bug with the toolchain that this commit
switches to I was unable to reproduce anything after a few builds. I have no
idea what the original problem was, but I'm hoping that it was just some random
bug fixed somewhere along the way.
I don't currently know of a technical reason to stick to the 4.9.2 toolchains we
were previously using. Historcal 5.3.* toolchains would cause llvm to segfault
(maybe a miscompile?) but this seems to have been fixed recently. To me if it
passes CI then I think we're good.
Closes #40546