-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
Add bootstrap check snapshot tests #143316
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
I'm still reviewing the original EDIT: done a review pass on the original PR, the general direction looks good to me 👍 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The initial baseline tests look good; the missing stage numbers on check from what I understand is left as a follow-up.
pub fn get_stage(&self) -> Option<u32> { | ||
self.stage.or(self | ||
.built_by | ||
.map(|compiler| if self.name == "std" { compiler.stage } else { compiler.stage + 1 })) | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggestion: maybe explicitly spell out the core model here?
Continuing from #143048 (review),
The stage numbering here has two cases:
- (compiler, library) will receive the same
$\mathrm{stage}$ number, because std is necessarily tightly coupled to the compiler. - For all other cases, they should be considered
$\mathrm{stage} + 1$ .
[build] rustc 0 <host> -> rustc 1 <host> | ||
[build] rustc 1 <host> -> std 1 <host> | ||
[check] rustc <host> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Question: I'm assuming the staging info is intended to be a follow-up (as in the overall PR) right?
As in, I'd expect the derivation chain for this to look like (overly simplified)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah. Right now, the check steps implicitly decide which compiler will build them, it's not represented explicitly in their Step parameters. Therefore it's also not easily representable in the step metadata.
@rustbot author |
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
@rustbot ready |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
@bors r+ rollup |
Split off from #143048, so that we get a baseline of how check behaved before we make changes to it. Note that the output of the check snapshot tests is suboptimal in many places, as we're missing information about stages and the build compiler. That will be changed in #143048.
r? @jieyouxu