Add batch flag to remote-test-server
When using this flag, the stdout and stderr are sent in a single batch instead of being streamed. It also used `Command::output` instead of `Command::spawn`. This is useful for targets that might support std but not threading (Eg: UEFI).
Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh <ayushsingh1325@gmail.com>
The lint "clippy::uninlined_format_args" recommends inline
variables in format strings. Fix two places in the docs that do
not do this. I noticed this because I copy/pasted one example in
to my project, then noticed this lint error. This fixes:
error: variables can be used directly in the `format!` string
--> src/main.rs:30:22
|
30 | let string = format!("{:.*}", decimals, magnitude);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: variables can be used directly in the `format!` string
--> src/main.rs:39:2
|
39 | write!(&mut io::stdout(), "{}", args).unwrap();
Don't copy symbols from dylibs with `-Zdylib-lto`
When `rustc_driver` started being built with `-Zdylib-lto -Clto=thin`, some libstd symbols were copied by the LTO process into the dylib. That causes duplicate local symbols that are not present otherwise.
Depending on the situation (lib loading order apparently), the duplicated symbols could cause issues: `rustc_driver` overrode the panic hook, but it didn't apply to rustc main's hook (the default from libstd). This is the cause of #105637, in some situations the panic hook installed by `rustc_driver` isn't executed, and only libstd's backtrace is shown (and a double panic). The query stack, as well as the various notes to open a GH about the ICE, don't appear.
It's not clear exactly what is needed to trigger the issue, but I have simulated a reproducer [here](https://github.com/lqd/issue-105637) with cargo involved, the incorrect panic hook is executed on my machine. It is hard to reproduce in a unit test: `cargo run` + `rustup` involves LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which is not the case for `compiletest`. cargo also adds unconditional flags that are then overridden in [`bootstrap` when building rustc with `rust.lto = thin`](9c07efe84f/src/bootstrap/compile.rs (L702-L714)) as done on CI).
All this to say the compilation and execution environment in `bootstrap` leading to the bug building `rustc_driver` is different from our UI tests, and I believe one of the reasons it's hard to make an exact reproducer test. Thankfully there's _still_ a difference in the behavior though: although in the unit test the correct panic hook seems to be executed compared to my repro and the current nightly, only the fix removes the double panic here.
The `7e8277aefa12f1469fb1df01418ff5846a7854a9` `try` build:
- fixes the reproducer repo linked above
- restores the ICE messages from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105321 back to the state in its OP compared to the description in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105637
- restores the ICE message and the query stack from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105777 compared to nightly
While I believe this technically fixes the P-critical issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105637, I would not want to close it yet as we may want to backport to beta/stable (if a point release happens, it would fix the ICEs reported on 1.66.0, which is built with ThinLTO on linux). Once this PR lands, I'll also open another PR to re-enable ThinLTO on x64 darwin's dist builder.
Rustup
r? `@ghost`
I'm on the train and my internet is too bad to download the necessary toolchain, so I have to use CI to find sync fallout.
changelog: none
<!-- changelog_checked -->
fix: not suggest seek_to_start_instead_of_rewind when expr is used
changelog: [`seek_to_start_instead_of_rewind`]: No longer lints, if the return of `seek` is used.
[#10096](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10096)
<!-- changelog_checked -->
Fixes#10065
fix logic in IncrementVisitor
There used to be a logical bug where IncrementVisitor would completely stop checking an expression/block after seeing a continue statement.
I am a little unsure of whether my fix to `IncrementVisitor` is logically sound (I hope it makes sense). Let me know what you think, and thanks in advance for the review!
fixes#10058
---
changelog: FP: [`explicit_counter_loop`]: No longer ignores counter changes after `continue` expressions
[#10094](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/10094)
<!-- changelog_checked -->
Previously, the str.lines() docstring stated that lines are split at line
endings, but not whether those were returned or not. This new version of the
docstring states this explicitly, avoiding the need of getting to doctests to
get an answer to this FAQ.
