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

rustc: rename -Z emit-directives to -Z emit-artifact-notifications and simplify the output. #60464

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 7, 2019

Conversation

eddyb
Copy link
Member

@eddyb eddyb commented May 2, 2019

This is my take on #60006 / #60419 (see #60006 (comment)).
I'm not too attached the "notifications" part, it's pretty much bikeshed material.
EDIT: for "artifact", @matklad pointed out Cargo already uses it (in #60464 (comment))

The first two commits are fixes that could be landed independently, especially the compiletest one, which removes the need for any of the normalization added in #60006 to land the test.

The last commit enables the emission for all outputs, which was my main suggestion for #60006, mostly to show that it's minimal and not really a "scope creep" (as suggested in #60006 (comment)).

cc @alexcrichton @nnethercote

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @pnkfelix

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 2, 2019
@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

@matklad
Copy link
Member

matklad commented May 2, 2019

"compiler-artifact" is also used by cargo, so it's an ok name.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

I don't personally have a preference one way or another on this, so long as Cargo gets the notification for metadata seems reasonable to me!

@eddyb eddyb force-pushed the not-overly-specific-pipelining branch from 4107447 to 098f96a Compare May 3, 2019 16:35
@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

@eddyb eddyb force-pushed the not-overly-specific-pipelining branch from 098f96a to fa9e8c8 Compare May 3, 2019 19:33
@eddyb
Copy link
Member Author

eddyb commented May 3, 2019

r? @alexcrichton

Copy link
Member

@alexcrichton alexcrichton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks reasonable to me! There's some stray changes I don't know why are included though

&self.testpaths.file,
TargetLocation::ThisFile(self.make_exe_name()),
);
// Only use `make_exe_name` when the test ends up being executed.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where did these changes come from and/or how are they related to the PR's title?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See the PR description - they remove the need for normalization, by fixing the compiletest bugs that affected #60006. IMO, the resulting tests are more clearly correct.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah ok, sorry for missing that!

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 6, 2019

📌 Commit fa9e8c829fdcfb08085a60e2d34367414b50a103 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors 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 May 6, 2019
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 6, 2019

⌛ Testing commit fa9e8c829fdcfb08085a60e2d34367414b50a103 with merge c940d25e110a9aabec4917bb262f1a6bc4ef9ed1...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 6, 2019

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

@bors 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 May 6, 2019
@eddyb
Copy link
Member Author

eddyb commented May 6, 2019

cc @davidtwco (#53196) looks like $TEST_BUILD_DIR doesn't work well on windows?

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member

@eddyb I'll kick off a build of this on Windows and see if I can figure out what it's doing wrong. I probably won't get to that until tomorrow though.

From a quick glance, I notice that the $TEST_BUILD_DIR path is printed with .to_str().unwrap():

normalized = normalized.replace(test_build_dir.to_str().unwrap(), "$TEST_BUILD_DIR");

Above that, the $SRC_DIR is printed with .display().to_string():

src_dir.display().to_string()

I wonder if this would be as simple as changing the $TEST_BUILD_DIR and $BUILD_DIR paths to print the same way as $SRC_DIR?

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

It took me multiple goes to get the normalization right due to various platform-specific differences. I suspect you might get to go through the same experience I had. I suspect you'll have a wasm-related failure at some point.

@eddyb
Copy link
Member Author

eddyb commented May 6, 2019

@nnethercote I fixed the underlying issue (-o being passed even when not building a binary to execute), which means I always get the right filename.
And I need no custom normalization, this is just another compiletest bug I want to fix instead of working around it.

@eddyb
Copy link
Member Author

eddyb commented May 7, 2019

Got distracted looking at the history of UI test normalization, I'm thinking 0cfc173 can be partially or fully reverted if the problems in question were caused by this bug.

Anyway, in this case, the failure makes a lot of sense, because if json logic is missing for most path normalizations, and this is a JSON test, so the replacement from \ to \\ is essential.

@eddyb eddyb force-pushed the not-overly-specific-pipelining branch from fa9e8c8 to c89a131 Compare May 7, 2019 02:22
@eddyb
Copy link
Member Author

eddyb commented May 7, 2019

@bors r=alexcrichton

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 7, 2019

📌 Commit c89a131 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors 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 May 7, 2019
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 7, 2019

⌛ Testing commit c89a131 with merge b8fa4cb...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request May 7, 2019
…ichton

rustc: rename -Z emit-directives to -Z emit-artifact-notifications and simplify the output.

This is my take on #60006 / #60419 (see #60006 (comment)).
I'm not too attached the "notifications" part, it's pretty much bikeshed material.
**EDIT**: for "artifact", @matklad pointed out Cargo already uses it (in #60464 (comment))

The first two commits are fixes that could be landed independently, especially the `compiletest` one, which removes the need for any of the normalization added in #60006 to land the test.

The last commit enables the emission for all outputs, which was my main suggestion for #60006, mostly to show that it's minimal and not really a "scope creep" (as suggested in #60006 (comment)).

cc @alexcrichton @nnethercote
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 7, 2019

☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor
Approved by: alexcrichton
Pushing b8fa4cb to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 7, 2019
@bors bors merged commit c89a131 into rust-lang:master May 7, 2019
@eddyb eddyb deleted the not-overly-specific-pipelining branch May 7, 2019 10:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants