Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI #136146

RalfJung · 2025-01-27T17:23:03Z

Part of #135408:
Instead of choosing this based on the target features listed in the target spec, make that choice explicit.
This means that all x86 (32bit and 64bit) softfloat target need to explicitly set rustc-abi to x86-softfloat.

Also fix some mistakes in the platform-docs where the x87 errata footnotes were missing or wrong.

try-job: x86_64-rust-for-linux

rustbot · 2025-01-27T17:23:11Z

r? @cjgillot

rustbot has assigned @cjgillot.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

rustbot · 2025-01-27T17:23:13Z

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

RalfJung · 2025-01-27T17:30:51Z

Cc @workingjubilee

cjgillot · 2025-01-28T00:01:51Z

r? compiler

RalfJung · 2025-01-28T01:41:41Z

compiler/rustc_target/src/target_features.rs

-    ("soft-float", Stability::Forbidden { reason: "unsound because it changes float ABI" }, &[]),
+    // This cannot actually be toggled, the ABI always fixes it, so it'd make little sense to
+    // stabilize. It must be in this list for the ABI check to be able to use it.
+    ("soft-float", Stability::Unstable(sym::x87_target_feature), &[]),


Making this "forbidden" just leads to duplicate warnings so there's little point in doing that.

This makes riscv's forced-atomics the only remaining "forbidden" feature.

That makes sense to me.

workingjubilee

My understanding is that while it changes some error outputs, this PR shouldn't have any practical effect on people, correct? Except those using our unstable target-spec.json, I suppose, and they bought the ticket for the ride they're going to get.

r=me with nits addressed

workingjubilee · 2025-01-28T02:47:41Z

compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/json.rs

+                    match s.parse::<super::RustcAbi>() {
+                        Ok(rustc_abi) => base.$key_name = Some(rustc_abi),
+                        _ => return Some(Err(format!(
+                            "'{s}' is not a valid value for rust-abi. \


Suggested change

"'{s}' is not a valid value for rust-abi. \

"'{s}' is not a valid value for rustc-abi. \

workingjubilee · 2025-01-28T02:48:53Z

compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/mod.rs

+/// The Rustc-specific variant of the ABI used for this target.
+#[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Hash, Debug)]
+pub enum RustcAbi {
+    /// On x86-32/64 only: do not use any FPU or SIMD registers for the ABI/


the "ABI/"?

RalfJung · 2025-01-28T02:59:38Z

My understanding is that while it changes some error outputs, this PR shouldn't have any practical effect on people, correct? Except those using our unstable target-spec.json, I suppose, and they bought the ticket for the ride they're going to get.

Correct, for custom target specs this can add -soft-float if you don't also set rustc-abi: "x86-softfloat". This is probably surprising as there is no warning about this, it just silently happens.

Maybe we should land #136147 first; that would avoid changing behavior for target-spec users and instead just emit a warning.

workingjubilee · 2025-01-28T03:02:20Z

I'm not worried about being maximally convenient for them, but either way. I'll try to review that when I finish my tea.

lcnr · 2025-01-28T10:33:13Z

r? @workingjubilee

rustbot · 2025-01-28T10:33:16Z

Could not assign reviewer from: workingjubilee.
User(s) workingjubilee are either the PR author, already assigned, or on vacation. Please use r? to specify someone else to assign.

bors · 2025-01-29T08:44:17Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #136225) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

RalfJung · 2025-02-01T18:06:36Z

Thanks! Let's see how that goes.
@bors try

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI Part of rust-lang#135408: Instead of choosing this based on the target features listed in the target spec, make that choice explicit. This means that all x86 (32bit and 64bit) softfloat target need to explicitly set `rustc-abi` to `x86-softfloat`. Also fix some mistakes in the platform-docs where the x87 errata footnotes were missing or wrong. try-job: x86_64-rust-for-linux

bors · 2025-02-01T18:07:48Z

⌛ Trying commit 42962c2 with merge 659b760...

bors · 2025-02-01T19:04:10Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 659b760 (659b7604e40d67bfc7780897d5fe447f2cf3004c)

RalfJung · 2025-02-02T09:10:18Z

Great, that seems to have worked, thanks. :) What is the next step? Can we land this as-is or do you want to integrate the change into some more upstream branch first?

Darksonn · 2025-02-02T09:41:03Z

I think it's fine as is.

RalfJung · 2025-02-02T10:26:41Z

@bors r=workingjubilee

bors · 2025-02-02T10:26:43Z

📌 Commit 42962c2 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

RalfJung · 2025-02-02T14:48:04Z

@bors p=1
There's a follow-up PR waiting for this.

workingjubilee · 2025-02-02T19:55:50Z

thanks!

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI Part of rust-lang#135408: Instead of choosing this based on the target features listed in the target spec, make that choice explicit. This means that all x86 (32bit and 64bit) softfloat target need to explicitly set `rustc-abi` to `x86-softfloat`. Also fix some mistakes in the platform-docs where the x87 errata footnotes were missing or wrong. try-job: x86_64-rust-for-linux

bors · 2025-02-02T22:00:12Z

⌛ Testing commit 42962c2 with merge 3ad08df...

rust-log-analyzer · 2025-02-02T22:06:39Z

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

Removing libglx-mesa0:arm64 (24.0.9-0ubuntu0.3) ...
Removing libgl1-mesa-dri:arm64 (24.0.9-0ubuntu0.3) ...
Removing libmysqlclient-dev (8.0.40-0ubuntu0.24.04.1) ...
Removing sphinxsearch (2.2.11-8build1) ...
Failed to retrieve unit state: Failed to activate service 'org.freedesktop.systemd1': timed out (service_start_timeout=25000ms)
invoke-rc.d: could not determine current runlevel
Failed to get properties: Connection timed out

Removing libmysqlclient21:arm64 (8.0.40-0ubuntu0.24.04.1) ...
---

invoke-rc.d: could not determine current runlevel
Failed to stop mysql.service: Connection timed out

See system logs and 'systemctl status mysql.service' for details.

invoke-rc.d: initscript mysql, action "stop" failed.
dpkg: error processing package mysql-server-8.0 (--remove):
 installed mysql-server-8.0 package pre-removal script subprocess returned error exit status 1
dpkg: too many errors, stopping
Failed to retrieve unit state: Failed to activate service 'org.freedesktop.systemd1': timed out (service_start_timeout=25000ms)
invoke-rc.d: could not determine current runlevel
Failed to stop mysql.service: Connection timed out


See system logs and 'systemctl status mysql.service' for details.

invoke-rc.d: initscript mysql, action "stop" failed.
Reload daemon failed: Failed to activate service 'org.freedesktop.systemd1': timed out (service_start_timeout=25000ms)

Failed to retrieve unit state: Failed to activate service 'org.freedesktop.systemd1': timed out (service_start_timeout=25000ms)
invoke-rc.d: could not determine current runlevel
Errors were encountered while processing:
 mysql-server-8.0
Processing was halted because there were too many errors.
Processing was halted because there were too many errors.
Error: Timeout was reached
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
##[error]Process completed with exit code 100.

bors · 2025-02-02T22:06:54Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

RalfJung · 2025-02-02T22:14:39Z

@bors retry various systemd timeouts on aarch64-gnu-debug?

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI Part of rust-lang#135408: Instead of choosing this based on the target features listed in the target spec, make that choice explicit. This means that all x86 (32bit and 64bit) softfloat target need to explicitly set `rustc-abi` to `x86-softfloat`. Also fix some mistakes in the platform-docs where the x87 errata footnotes were missing or wrong. try-job: x86_64-rust-for-linux

bors · 2025-02-02T22:18:41Z

⌛ Testing commit 42962c2 with merge 09a2a17...

workingjubilee · 2025-02-02T22:50:41Z

but note also #135867

rust-log-analyzer · 2025-02-02T23:14:16Z

The job dist-x86_64-msvc failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[2025-02-02T23:05:13Z DEBUG collector::compile::benchmark] Benchmark iteration 1/1
[2025-02-02T23:05:13Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Opt, scenario=Some(Full), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:13Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpYsSGED#externs@0.1.0" "--release" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln"
[2025-02-02T23:05:13Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Opt, scenario=Some(IncrFull), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:13Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpYsSGED#externs@0.1.0" "--release" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpYsSGED\\incremental-state"
[2025-02-02T23:05:14Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Opt, scenario=Some(IncrUnchanged), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:14Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpYsSGED#externs@0.1.0" "--release" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpYsSGED\\incremental-state"
Executing benchmark match-stress (6/8)
Preparing match-stress
[2025-02-02T23:05:14Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Check, scenario=None, patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=dependencies
[2025-02-02T23:05:14Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Debug, scenario=None, patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=dependencies
---
[2025-02-02T23:05:15Z DEBUG collector::compile::benchmark] Benchmark iteration 1/1
[2025-02-02T23:05:15Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Check, scenario=Some(Full), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:15Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpHadMsd#match-stress@0.1.0" "--profile" "check" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln"
[2025-02-02T23:05:16Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Check, scenario=Some(IncrFull), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:16Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpHadMsd#match-stress@0.1.0" "--profile" "check" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpHadMsd\\incremental-state"
[2025-02-02T23:05:18Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Check, scenario=Some(IncrUnchanged), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:18Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpHadMsd#match-stress@0.1.0" "--profile" "check" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpHadMsd\\incremental-state"
[2025-02-02T23:05:18Z DEBUG collector::compile::benchmark] Benchmark iteration 1/1
[2025-02-02T23:05:18Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(Full), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:18Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpUO9DGb#match-stress@0.1.0" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln"
[2025-02-02T23:05:20Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(IncrFull), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
---
[2025-02-02T23:05:40Z DEBUG collector::compile::benchmark] Benchmark iteration 1/1
[2025-02-02T23:05:40Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(Full), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:40Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpgxSQJB#tuple-stress@0.1.0" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln"
[2025-02-02T23:05:43Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(IncrFull), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:43Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpgxSQJB#tuple-stress@0.1.0" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpgxSQJB\\incremental-state"
[2025-02-02T23:05:47Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(IncrUnchanged), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:47Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpgxSQJB#tuple-stress@0.1.0" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpgxSQJB\\incremental-state"
[2025-02-02T23:05:48Z DEBUG collector::compile::benchmark::patch] applying new row to "C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpgxSQJB"
[2025-02-02T23:05:48Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(IncrPatched), patch=Some(Patch { index: 0, name: PatchName("new row"), path: "0-new-row.patch" }), backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:48Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Debug, scenario=Some(IncrPatched), patch=Some(Patch { index: 0, name: PatchName("new row"), path: "0-new-row.patch" }), backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:48Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmpgxSQJB#tuple-stress@0.1.0" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln" "-C" "incremental=C:\\a\\_temp\\msys64\\tmp\\.tmpgxSQJB\\incremental-state"
[2025-02-02T23:05:51Z DEBUG collector::compile::benchmark] Benchmark iteration 1/1
[2025-02-02T23:05:51Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=false, profile=Opt, scenario=Some(Full), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark
[2025-02-02T23:05:51Z DEBUG collector::compile::execute] "\\\\?\\C:\\a\\rust\\rust\\build\\x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\\stage0\\bin\\cargo.exe" "rustc" "--manifest-path" "Cargo.toml" "-p" "path+file:///C:/a/_temp/msys64/tmp/.tmp8T31TW#tuple-stress@0.1.0" "--release" "--" "--wrap-rustc-with" "Eprintln"
[2025-02-02T23:05:54Z INFO  collector::compile::execute] run_rustc with incremental=true, profile=Opt, scenario=Some(IncrFull), patch=None, backend=Llvm, phase=benchmark

bors · 2025-02-02T23:14:52Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

rustbot assigned cjgillot Jan 27, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 27, 2025

RalfJung force-pushed the x86-abi branch from 9a08be7 to 98dc988 Compare January 27, 2025 17:27

RalfJung mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2025

x86: make SSE2 required for i686 targets and use it to pass SIMD types #135408

Draft

RalfJung changed the title ~~Explicit choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI~~ Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI Jan 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot assigned lcnr and unassigned cjgillot Jan 28, 2025

workingjubilee assigned workingjubilee and unassigned lcnr Jan 28, 2025

RalfJung force-pushed the x86-abi branch 3 times, most recently from bd35e7c to 89fa12a Compare January 28, 2025 01:40

RalfJung commented Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

RalfJung force-pushed the x86-abi branch from 89fa12a to 438bd1b Compare January 28, 2025 02:51

workingjubilee approved these changes Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

RalfJung force-pushed the x86-abi branch from 438bd1b to 9f1a635 Compare January 28, 2025 02:58

platform-support docs: fix x87 errata footnotes

556010a

RalfJung force-pushed the x86-abi branch from 9f1a635 to 11c35f3 Compare January 29, 2025 09:59

rustbot added the T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Feb 1, 2025

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Feb 2, 2025

bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Feb 2, 2025

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2025

Rollup of 8 pull requests #136454

Merged

bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Feb 2, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI #136146

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI #136146

RalfJung commented Jan 27, 2025 •

edited by workingjubilee

Loading

rustbot commented Jan 27, 2025

rustbot commented Jan 27, 2025

RalfJung commented Jan 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

cjgillot commented Jan 28, 2025

RalfJung Jan 28, 2025

workingjubilee Jan 28, 2025

workingjubilee left a comment

workingjubilee Jan 28, 2025

workingjubilee Jan 28, 2025

RalfJung commented Jan 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

workingjubilee commented Jan 28, 2025

lcnr commented Jan 28, 2025

rustbot commented Jan 28, 2025

bors commented Jan 29, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 1, 2025

bors commented Feb 1, 2025

bors commented Feb 1, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025 via email

Darksonn commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025

workingjubilee commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

rust-log-analyzer commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

workingjubilee commented Feb 2, 2025

rust-log-analyzer commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

	"'{s}' is not a valid value for rust-abi. \
	"'{s}' is not a valid value for rustc-abi. \

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI #136146

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Explicitly choose x86 softfloat/hardfloat ABI #136146

Conversation

RalfJung commented Jan 27, 2025 • edited by workingjubilee Loading

rustbot commented Jan 27, 2025

rustbot commented Jan 27, 2025

RalfJung commented Jan 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

cjgillot commented Jan 28, 2025

RalfJung Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

workingjubilee Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

workingjubilee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

workingjubilee Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

workingjubilee Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RalfJung commented Jan 28, 2025 • edited Loading

workingjubilee commented Jan 28, 2025

lcnr commented Jan 28, 2025

rustbot commented Jan 28, 2025

bors commented Jan 29, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 1, 2025

bors commented Feb 1, 2025

bors commented Feb 1, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025 via email

Darksonn commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025

workingjubilee commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

rust-log-analyzer commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

workingjubilee commented Feb 2, 2025

rust-log-analyzer commented Feb 2, 2025

bors commented Feb 2, 2025

RalfJung commented Jan 27, 2025 •

edited by workingjubilee

Loading

RalfJung commented Jan 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading