Rollup of 3 pull requests #72064
Closed
Rollup of 3 pull requests #72064
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
This commit fixes an issue where the codegen backend's selection of LTO disagreed with what the codegen later thought was being done. Discovered in rust-lang#72006 we have a longstanding issue where if `-Clinker-plugin-lto` in optimized mode is compiled incrementally it will always panic on the second compilation. The underlying issue turned out to be that the production of the original artifact determined that LTO should not be done (because it's being postponed to the linker) but the CGU reuse selection thought that LTO was done so it was trying to load pre-LTO artifacts which were never generated. The fix here is to ensure that the logic when generating code which determines what kind of LTO is being done is shared amongst the CGU reuse decision and the backend actually doing LTO. This means that they'll both be in agreement about whether the previous compilation did indeed produce incremental pre-LTO artifacts. Closes rust-lang#72006
…kinnison,ollie27 Deprecated emoji Fixes rust-lang#67872. r? @kinnison cc @rust-lang/rustdoc
…-plugin-lto, r=oli-obk Fix disagreeement about CGU reuse and LTO This commit fixes an issue where the codegen backend's selection of LTO disagreed with what the codegen later thought was being done. Discovered in rust-lang#72006 we have a longstanding issue where if `-Clinker-plugin-lto` in optimized mode is compiled incrementally it will always panic on the second compilation. The underlying issue turned out to be that the production of the original artifact determined that LTO should not be done (because it's being postponed to the linker) but the CGU reuse selection thought that LTO was done so it was trying to load pre-LTO artifacts which were never generated. The fix here is to ensure that the logic when generating code which determines what kind of LTO is being done is shared amongst the CGU reuse decision and the backend actually doing LTO. This means that they'll both be in agreement about whether the previous compilation did indeed produce incremental pre-LTO artifacts. Closes rust-lang#72006
…lan-DPC Add missing backtick in E0569 explanation r? @Dylan-DPC
|
@bors r+ rollu |
|
📌 Commit 607b965 has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
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.
Successful merges:
Failed merges:
r? @ghost