[beta] backports #94933
Merged
[beta] backports #94933
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
The problematic compile-time issue should be resolved with this version.
PR rust-lang#93918 made it so that `-static-libstdc++` was only set in one place, and was only set during linking, but accidentally also made it so that it is no longer passed when building LLD or sanitizers, only when building LLVM itself. This moves the logic for setting `-static-libstdc++` in the linker flags back to `configure_cmake` so that it takes effect for all CMake invocations in `native.rs`. As a side-effect, this also causes libstdc++ to be statically compiled into sanitizers and LLD if `llvm-tools-enabled` is set but `llvm-static-stdcpp` is not, even though previously it was only linked statically if `llvm-static-stdcpp` was set explicitly. But that seems more like the expected behavior anyway.
Follow up to rust-lang#92959. Address rust-lang#94508.
First, this reverts the `CFLAGS`/`CXXFLAGS` of rust-lang#93918. Those flags are already read by `cc` and populated into `Build` earlier on in the process. We shouldn't be overriding that based on `CFLAGS`, since `cc` also respects overrides like `CFLAGS_{TARGET}` and `HOST_CFLAGS`, which we want to take into account. Second, this adds the same capability to specify target-specific versions of `LDFLAGS` as we have through `cc` for the `C*` flags: https://github.com/alexcrichton/cc-rs#external-configuration-via-environment-variables Note that this also necessitated an update to compiletest to treat CXXFLAGS separately from CFLAGS.
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
|
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 Once this lands I'll also kick off another crater run. |
|
📌 Commit 9d7e021 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@bors r- |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
|
📌 Commit 12cae30 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2022
…k-Simulacrum [beta] Remove statement that was forgotten when backporting rust-lang#94596 This `if` statement was introduced in rust-lang#94438, then removed in rust-lang#94596. Both of these PRs were beta-backported in rust-lang#94933, but I think there was a mistake in the order they were applied or this removal was overlooked. I think this fixes the remaining issues referenced in rust-lang#94511 (comment). Not sure this is the correct way to put something up for beta-backport, but the PR is at least open so it can be referenced and the commit can be cherry-picked. Feel free to close this PR. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` cc: rust-lang#94511
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.
#[test]on macro call to warning #94624r? @Mark-Simulacrum