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

Exclude -gnullvm target from i686_gnu build.rs #2970

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Exclude -gnullvm target from i686_gnu build.rs #2970

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jeremyd2019
Copy link
Contributor

@jeremyd2019 jeremyd2019 commented Apr 4, 2024

This was missed in #2774 even though the similar check was added to x86_64_gnu, presumably because there was no handling for i686-pc-windows-gnullvm at that time.

Follow-up to #2961 (comment)

This was missed in #2774, even though the similar check was added to x86_64_gnu, presumably because there was no handling for i686-pc-windows-gnullvm at that time.
@riverar
Copy link
Collaborator

riverar commented Apr 4, 2024

Before we merge this in, we'd like to fix the current cross.yml to catch this error condition first. Then we can use that failing test to validate this new PR.

@jeremyd2019
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeremyd2019 commented Apr 4, 2024

I'm not seeing how you would test that, but OK. Theoretically, if you had a branch where you reverted #2961 (except for the change to cross.yml), and applied the change from this PR to it, the i686-pc-windows-gnullvm check would fail. Then #2961 would be the "correct" fix for that failure...

Sorry for doing things kind of out of sequence here... I didn't notice the "oversight" from #2774 until I had already created #2961 (the failure of adding i686-pc-windows-gnullvm to check.yml to fail as expected was a bit of a mystery to me until later, as you could probably see from the comments).

@kennykerr
Copy link
Collaborator

Really appreciate you helping out here and debugging this further. I guess what I'm trying to say is that these checks don't appear to be necessary any longer and #2973 seems to confirm.

@jeremyd2019
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeremyd2019 commented Apr 4, 2024

Yes, I figured this was an intentional "belt-and-suspenders" type situation, excluding both via the Cargo.toml dependencies and via the build.rs. But it would certainly make life easier if the targets were only filtered in one place.

@kennykerr
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing in favor of #2973.

@kennykerr kennykerr closed this Apr 5, 2024
@jeremyd2019 jeremyd2019 deleted the patch-1 branch April 5, 2024 00:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants