Bootstrap command refactoring: port remaining commands with access to Build (step 6)
#127680
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 PR changes how LLVM is built. Consider updating src/bootstrap/download-ci-llvm-stamp. |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
19 tasks
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Passes `&Builder<'_>` to additional places, so that they could use the `BootstrapCommand` APIs directly, rather than going through `as_command_mut`.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd-refactor-6
branch
from
0bd3f72
to
9fecc4e
Compare
|
Rebased to fix conflict. |
fbstj
reviewed
Jul 14, 2024
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd-refactor-6
branch
from
9fecc4e
to
25048ab
Compare
onur-ozkan
reviewed
Jul 15, 2024
It was only used in bootstrap. This move allows us to modify the function to work with `BootstrapCommand`, rather than `Command`.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd-refactor-6
branch
from
25048ab
to
7a54117
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: port remaining commands with access to `Build` (step 6) Continuation of rust-lang#127450. This PR ports commands in bootstrap that can easily get access to `Build(er)` to `BootstrapCommand`. After this PR, everything that can access `Build(er)` should be using the new API. Statistics of `bootstrap` code (ignoring `src/bin/<shims>`) after this PR: ``` 7 usages of `Command::new` 69 usages of `command()` (new API) - out of that: 16 usages of `as_command_mut()` (new API, but accesses the inner command) ``` Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2024
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#120990 (Suggest a borrow when using dbg) - rust-lang#127047 (fix least significant digits of f128 associated constants) - rust-lang#127680 (Bootstrap command refactoring: port remaining commands with access to `Build` (step 6)) - rust-lang#127770 (Update books) - rust-lang#127780 (Make sure trait def ids match before zipping args in `note_function_argument_obligation`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (2823cfb): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 7.0%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 700.173s -> 699.505s (-0.10%) |
lukas-code
reviewed
Jul 18, 2024
Comment on lines
+537
to
+543
| let current_branch = helpers::git(Some(&self.src)) | ||
| .capture_stdout() | ||
| .run_always() | ||
| .args(["symbolic-ref", "--short", "HEAD"]) | ||
| .run(self) | ||
| .stdout_if_ok() | ||
| .map(|s| s.trim().to_owned()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This broke working on a detached HEAD:
error message
Updating submodule src/doc/book
fatal: ref HEAD is not a symbolic ref
Command cd "/data/code/rust" && env -u GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES -u GIT_DIR -u GIT_INDEX_FILE -u GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY -u GIT_WORK_TREE "git" "symbolic-ref" "--short" "HEAD" (failure_mode=Exit, stdout_mode=Capture, stderr_mode=Print) did not execute successfully.
Expected success, got exit status: 128
Created at: src/lib.rs:536:34
Executed at: src/lib.rs:540:18
STDOUT ----
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:00
I think we need .allow_failure() here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right, should be fixed by #127919.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
Allow a git command for getting the current branch in bootstrap to fail Found by `@lukas-code` [here](rust-lang#127680 (comment)). The bug was introduced in rust-lang#127680 (before, the command was allowed to fail). r? `@onur-ozkan`
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#127919 - Kobzol:fix-git-command, r=onur-ozkan Allow a git command for getting the current branch in bootstrap to fail Found by `@lukas-code` [here](rust-lang#127680 (comment)). The bug was introduced in rust-lang#127680 (before, the command was allowed to fail). r? `@onur-ozkan`
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? ``@onur-ozkan``
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? ```@onur-ozkan```
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
…try> Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan` try-job: x86_64-msvc
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 28, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan` try-job: x86_64-msvc
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2024
Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang/rust#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan` try-job: x86_64-msvc
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.
Continuation of #127450.
This PR ports commands in bootstrap that can easily get access to
Build(er)toBootstrapCommand. After this PR, everything that can accessBuild(er)should be using the new API.Statistics of
bootstrapcode (ignoringsrc/bin/<shims>) after this PR:Tracking issue: #126819
r? @onur-ozkan