This seems to fix two sporadic errors that have been appearing in CI.
One is an issue with cmake being unable to verify that cmake is able to
build a simple test program. The other is a `invalid r_symbolnum`
linking error when trying to build one of cranelift's tests.
This is intended as a temporary fix until we can figure out how to
resolve those issues.
Bump Fuchsia, build tests, and use 8 core bots
- Build Fuchsia on 8 cores instead of 16
- Skip building cranelift for Fuchsia
- Bump Fuchsia (includes building tests)
This includes a change to the upstream build_fuchsia_from_rust_ci script that builds a minimal set of tests, to improve coverage on this builder. This would have caught https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11952 and #119593.
See prior discussion on #119400 about building on 8 cores instead of 16. This PR combines changes from that and #119399, plus clean up.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
This commit temporarily reverts the addition of M1 runners on GitHub
Actions to work around a billing issue related to their beta. It also
removes the `aarch64-apple` job, which was only added after the addition
of M1 runners. Since it has never been tested on the prior hardware, we
are skipping the tests to reduce the risk of build failures.
update which targets we test Miri on
I hope this doesn't cost too much time; running only the "pass" tests should be reasonably fast (1-2 minutes on my system).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117167
This avoids needlessly building cg_clif for other targets and makes it
easier for the dist code to determine if it should distribute cg_clif as
component.
ci: add a runner for vanilla LLVM 17
For CI cost, this can be seen as replacing the llvm-14 runner we dropped in #114148.
Also, I've set `IS_NOT_LATEST_LLVM` in the llvm-16 runner, since that's not the latest anymore.
Remove wasm32-unknown-emscripten tests from CI
This builder tested the wasm32-unknown-emscripten target, which is tier 2 (and so not eligible for testing). In the recent beta [promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116362#issuecomment-1744960904), we ran into a problem with this target: emscripten doesn't support passing environment variables into the std environment, so we can't enable RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP for libtest in order to pass -Zunstable-options.
We worked around this for the beta/stable branches, but given this problem, and its tier 2 status, just dropping the target's tests entirely seems warranted. Downgrading to tier 3 may also be a good idea, but that is a separate conversation not proposed here.
This builder tested the wasm32-unknown-emscripten target, which is tier
2 (and so not eligible for testing). In the recent beta promotion, we
ran into a problem with this target: emscripten doesn't support
passing environment variables into the std environment, so we can't
enable RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP for libtest in order to pass -Zunstable-options.
We worked around this for the beta/stable branches, but given this
problem, and its tier 2 status, just dropping the target's tests
entirely seems warranted. Downgrading to tier 3 may also be a good idea,
but that is a separate conversation not proposed here.
Raise minimum supported Apple OS versions
This implements the proposal to raise the minimum supported Apple OS versions as laid out in the now-completed MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556).
As of this PR, rustc and the stdlib now support these versions as the baseline:
- macOS: 10.12 Sierra
- iOS: 10
- tvOS: 10
- watchOS: 5 (Unchanged)
In addition to everything this breaks indirectly, these changes also erase the `armv7-apple-ios` target (currently tier 3) because the oldest supported iOS device now uses ARMv7s. Not sure what the policy around tier3 target removal is but shimming it is not an option due to the linker refusing.
[Per comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556#issuecomment-1297175073), this requires a FCP to merge. cc `@wesleywiser.`
CI: use smaller machines in PR runs
mingw-check job-linux-16c -> job-linux-4c
~job-linux-4c 20 min in auto job
~job-linux-16c 13 min in pr job
with current pr regressed to almost 21 min, it's ok.
mingw-check-tidy job-linux-16c -> job-linux-4c small enough, so reduce to minimal
~ job-linux-16c 3 min
with current pr regressed to almost 5 min, it's ok.
x86_64-gnu-tools job-linux-16c this is top job by time in PR, so don't touch it
~ job-linux-8c 1.30 hour in auto job
~ job-linux-16c 1 hour in pr job (affected by #114613, actual time ~ 30 min)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-15 job-linux-16c don't change too
~ job-linux-8c 1.30 hour in auto job
~ job-linux-16c 30 min in pr job
Noticed while working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114621, so current time affected by always rebuilded docker images (but pr images always rebuilded before too, so nvm)
Mention style for new syntax in tracking issue template
`@rust-lang/style` would like the specification of new syntax in the style guide to be part of the feature stabilization process, in order to avoid situations where new syntax is stabilized and it never has style specified or formatting implemented for it. This most recently occurred with [let-else](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/07/01/rustfmt-supports-let-else-statements.html). We've made a lot of progress with the [nightly style procedure](https://github.com/rust-lang/style-team/blob/master/nightly-style-procedure.md) to unblock rustfmt from experimenting with formatting for new syntax, and T-style's existence means we actually have people who are willing and qualified to make decisions about formatting specification.
This check-box should also perhaps include "formatting support implemented in rustfmt", but that's really up to `@rust-lang/rustfmt,` so I'm not volunteering them for any new responsibilities in this PR just yet.
Putting this up mostly to discuss with T-lang, though feedback welcome from anyone.
---
As more of an implementation detail: alternatively, instead of a this could be just added to the existing rustc-dev-guide chapter(s) on stabilization.
r? `@ghost`
CI: include workflow name in concurrency group
Currently, this won't change anything, because we only have one relevant workflow (`CI`), but for future proofing we should probably include the workflow name in the concurrency group.
Found by ``@klensy`` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113059#discussion_r1247213606).
