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

Make rustc_parse_format compile on stable again #117819

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 15, 2023

Conversation

fmease
Copy link
Member

@fmease fmease commented Nov 11, 2023

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 11, 2023
Comment on lines +14 to +15
// WARNING: We want to be able to build this crate with a stable compiler,
// so no `#![feature]` attributes should be added!
Copy link
Member Author

@fmease fmease Nov 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Someday I might open an MCP for #![deny(rustc::features)] or a lang RFC for #![deny(features)] :^)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think a simple PR to add the lint would be enough for that. Lints are explicitly not stable, and this is a lint for an unstable feature (the feature attribute).

@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

can we add a CI builder that builds those crates with the bootstrap compiler (without RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP)?

@fmease
Copy link
Member Author

fmease commented Nov 12, 2023

That's not my metier but I can read up on it.

@fmease
Copy link
Member Author

fmease commented Nov 15, 2023

Can we merge this as is? I think this unblocks the next r-a sync? I'm gonna open a t-bootstrap/t-infra ticket for building crates which ought to compile without unstable features without RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 in CI.

@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

feel free to r- and r=me with an even bigger and scarier warning if you want to

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 15, 2023

📌 Commit 732b4bb has been approved by Nilstrieb

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 Nov 15, 2023
@fmease
Copy link
Member Author

fmease commented Nov 15, 2023

cc #117937

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 15, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 732b4bb with merge d4559c0...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 15, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb
Pushing d4559c0 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 15, 2023
@bors bors merged commit d4559c0 into rust-lang:master Nov 15, 2023
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.76.0 milestone Nov 15, 2023
@fmease fmease deleted the rustc_parse_format-stable-rustc branch November 15, 2023 17:04
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d4559c0): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

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)
0.8% [0.8%, 0.8%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.8% [-1.2%, -0.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.6% [-2.6%, -2.6%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.4% [-1.2%, 0.8%] 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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.7% [-0.7%, -0.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.7% [-0.7%, -0.7%] 1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 674.821s -> 674.873s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 311.10 MiB -> 311.07 MiB (-0.01%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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-compiler Relevant to the compiler 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