Enable --check-cfg by default in UI tests - #124345
Conversation
commented
Apr 24, 2024
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest cc @jieyouxu |
| // Generate `cfg(FALSE, REV1, ..., REVN)` (for all possible revisions) | ||
| // | ||
| // For compatibility reason we consider the `FALSE` cfg to be expected | ||
| // since it is extensively used in the testsuite. | ||
| check_cfg.push_str("cfg(FALSE"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have any documentation for this special case? If not, could you please document this behavior in the dev-guide so that the knowledge of FALSE being "special" exists somewhere? Or rather, if it's recommended to be used stylistically for configuring something out, can that be documented too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not aware, nor was I able to find any documentation regarding FALSE being a de-facto cfg that will eval to false.
could you please document this behavior in the dev-guide
Sure, I will send a PR for that.
EDIT: forget to send it, sorry
There was a problem hiding this comment.
rustc-dev-guide PR is up rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1966
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
7cefc9d to
b6ed813
Compare
commented
Apr 24, 2024
|
Thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
commented
Apr 24, 2024
commented
Apr 25, 2024
|
Hum, apparently the Fortunately the branching of master should happen tomorrow (the 26th) and the update of stage0 sometime next week, so I think the best course of action is just to wait a couple days. |
commented
May 1, 2024
|
@rustbot blocked waiting for stage0 update |
b6ed813 to
595ddb0
Compare
commented
May 2, 2024
commented
May 2, 2024
|
Thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
c897ec1 to
34dbfc3
Compare
commented
May 3, 2024
No worries. The issue was in the |
commented
May 3, 2024
commented
May 4, 2024
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
commented
May 4, 2024
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
this directive prevents compiletest from adding any implicit and automatic --check-cfg arguments
34dbfc3 to
d4e26fb
Compare
commented
May 4, 2024
commented
May 4, 2024
commented
May 4, 2024
commented
May 4, 2024
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
commented
May 4, 2024
|
Finished benchmarking commit (7dd170f): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 675.105s -> 676.427s (0.20%) |
This PR enables-by-default
--check-cfgin UI tests, now that it has become stable.To do so this PR does 2 main things:
no-auto-check-cfgdirective tocompiletest, to prevent any--check-cfgargs (only to be used for--check-cfgtests)I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.
r? @jieyouxu
Footnotes
some preparation work was done in Do some preparation work for compiletest check-cfg #123577 Further cleanup cfgs in the UI test suite #123702 ↩