Reduce usage of compiler_for in bootstrap
#145310
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
This PR modifies If appropriate, please update |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
compiler-for-revamp
branch
from
b4c6c8e to
39ff9a3
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145295) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
compiler-for-revamp
branch
from
39ff9a3 to
4d9cbfd
Compare
jieyouxu
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2025
| @@ -143,7 +144,7 @@ impl Step for Std { | |||
| skip_all, | |||
| fields( | |||
| target = ?self.target, | |||
| compiler = ?self.compiler, | |||
| build_compiler = ?self.build_compiler, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remark: I think this will merge-conflict with #145340
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, why should it? That only modified check and this modifies compile 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, you probably meant the #[instrument] removal PR.
|
@rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145407) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
compiler-for-revamp
branch
from
4d9cbfd to
f2c2d3e
Compare
|
Rebased. @bors r=jieyouxu |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #144210 (std: thread: Return error if setting thread stack size fails) - #145310 (Reduce usage of `compiler_for` in bootstrap) - #145311 (ci: clean windows disk space in background) - #145340 (Split codegen backend check step into two and don't run it with `x check compiler`) - #145408 (Deduplicate -L search paths) - #145412 (Windows: Replace `GetThreadId`+`GetCurrentThread` with `GetCurrentThreadId`) - #145413 (bootstrap: Reduce dependencies) - #145426 (Fix typos in bootstrap.example.toml) - #145430 (Fix wrong spans with external macros in the `dropping_copy_types` lint) - #145431 (Enhance UI test output handling for runtime errors) - #145448 (Autolabel `src/tools/{rustfmt,rust-analyzer}` changes with `T-{rustfmt,rust-analyzer}`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2025
Rollup merge of #145310 - Kobzol:compiler-for-revamp, r=jieyouxu Reduce usage of `compiler_for` in bootstrap While working on refactoring/fixing `dist` steps, I realized that `build.full-bootstrap` does much more than it should, and that it its documentation is wrong. It seems that the main purpose of this option should be to enable/disable stdlib/compiler uplifting (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/Purpose.20of.20.60build.2Efull-bootstrap.60/with/533985624), but currently it also affects staging, or more precisely which compiler will be used to build selected steps, because this option is used in the cursed `compiler_for` function. I would like to change the option it so that it *only* affects uplifting, and doesn't affect stage selection, which I (partially) did in this PR. I removed the usage of `compiler_for` from the `Std` and `Rustc` steps, and explicitly implemented uplifting, without going through `compiler_for`. The only remaining usages of `compiler_for` are in dist steps (which I'm currently refactoring, will send a PR later) and test steps (which I will take a look at after dist). After that we can finally remove the function. I tried to document the case when uplifting was happening during cross-compilation, which was very implicit before. I also did a slight change in the uplifting logic for rustc when cross-compiling. Before, we would attempt to uplift a stage1 rustc, but that is not really a thing when cross-compiling. r? `@jieyouxu`
This was referenced Aug 18, 2025
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.
While working on refactoring/fixing
diststeps, I realized thatbuild.full-bootstrapdoes much more than it should, and that it its documentation is wrong. It seems that the main purpose of this option should be to enable/disable stdlib/compiler uplifting (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/Purpose.20of.20.60build.2Efull-bootstrap.60/with/533985624), but currently it also affects staging, or more precisely which compiler will be used to build selected steps, because this option is used in the cursedcompiler_forfunction.I would like to change the option it so that it only affects uplifting, and doesn't affect stage selection, which I (partially) did in this PR. I removed the usage of
compiler_forfrom theStdandRustcsteps, and explicitly implemented uplifting, without going throughcompiler_for.The only remaining usages of
compiler_forare in dist steps (which I'm currently refactoring, will send a PR later) and test steps (which I will take a look at after dist). After that we can finally remove the function.I tried to document the case when uplifting was happening during cross-compilation, which was very implicit before. I also did a slight change in the uplifting logic for rustc when cross-compiling. Before, we would attempt to uplift a stage1 rustc, but that is not really a thing when cross-compiling.
r? @jieyouxu