Do not attempt to recompile codegen backend(s) with --keep-stage #52360
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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Previously we'd attempt to recompile them and that would fail since we've essentially not built the entire compiler yet, or we're faking that fact. This commit should make us ignore the codegen backend build as well. Unlike the other compile steps, there is no CodegenBackendLink step that we run here, because that is done later as a part of assembling the final compiler and as an explicit function call.
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
fix-keep-stage-for-cg-backends
branch
from
4755a72
to
a569c24
Compare
|
Hi Mark! This does not solve things for me, though it does change the error message. This is the full message: The important part being: Before running this I did a full test compile once by executing the same command but without |
|
Keeping stage 1 and running in stage 2 gives a slightly different error: |
|
It didn't fully work for me either. I first did Then I changed something in |
The best way to build a stage 2 rustc is now probably ./x.py build --stage 2 src/rustc # once ./x.py build --stage 2 --keep-stage 1 src/rustc
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 8eddaba has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2018
…, r=alexcrichton Do not attempt to recompile codegen backend(s) with --keep-stage Previously we'd attempt to recompile them and that would fail since we've essentially not built the entire compiler yet, or we're faking that fact. This commit should make us ignore the codegen backend build as well. Unlike the other compile steps, there is no CodegenBackendLink step that we run here, because that is done later as a part of assembling the final compiler and as an explicit function call. r? @alexcrichton I think this may fix or at least assist with #52174. cc @RalfJung @tinco -- if you can test this patch locally that'd be amazing; I don't want to recompile for the next couple hours to test it locally. I don't think it can make the situation worse, and in fact, if I've interpreted the cause of the failure correctly then this will fix your problem.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
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.
Previously we'd attempt to recompile them and that would fail since
we've essentially not built the entire compiler yet, or we're faking
that fact. This commit should make us ignore the codegen backend build
as well.
Unlike the other compile steps, there is no CodegenBackendLink step that
we run here, because that is done later as a part of assembling the
final compiler and as an explicit function call.
r? @alexcrichton
I think this may fix or at least assist with #52174.
cc @RalfJung @tinco -- if you can test this patch locally that'd be
amazing; I don't want to recompile for the next couple hours to test it
locally. I don't think it can make the situation worse, and in fact, if
I've interpreted the cause of the failure correctly then this will fix
your problem.