| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
Currently lldb tests are run only on macOS, and gdb tests are only run
elsewhere. This patch changes this to run tests depending on what is
available.
One test is changed, as it was previously marked as failing on macOS,
whereas really it is a generic failure with lldb.
Closes #54721
|
|
If the rust-enabled lldb was built, then use it when running the
debuginfo tests. Updating the lldb submodule was necessary as this
needed a way to differentiate the rust-enabled lldb, so I added a line
to the --version output.
This adds compiletest commands to differentiate between the
rust-enabled and non-rust-enabled lldb, as is already done for gdb. A
new "rust-lldb" header directive is also added, but not used in this
patch; I plan to use it in #54004.
This updates all the tests.
|
|
Fix #53764.
|
|
Add rustc SHA to released DWARF debuginfo
This commit updates the debuginfo that is encoded in all of our released
artifacts by default. Currently it has paths like `/checkout/src/...` but these
are a little inconsistent and have changed over time. This commit instead
attempts to actually define the file paths in our debuginfo to be consistent
between releases.
All debuginfo paths are now intended to be `/rustc/$sha` where `$sha` is the git
sha of the released compiler. Sub-paths are all paths into the git repo at that
`$sha`.
|
|
This commit updates the debuginfo that is encoded in all of our released
artifacts by default. Currently it has paths like `/checkout/src/...` but these
are a little inconsistent and have changed over time. This commit instead
attempts to actually define the file paths in our debuginfo to be consistent
between releases.
All debuginfo paths are now intended to be `/rustc/$sha` where `$sha` is the git
sha of the released compiler. Sub-paths are all paths into the git repo at that
`$sha`.
|
|
(done by matthiaskrgr, but I authored ehuss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bring in some fixes for `cargo fix` notably
|
|
See rust-lang-nursery/rls#966 for details.
|
|
|
|
In this way, RUSTC_NO_PREFER_DYNAMIC is already specified and not
needed.
|
|
|
|
Compile rustc before building tests for rustdoc
r? @alexcrichton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit updates the stage0 build of tools to use the libraries of the stage0
compiler instead of the compiled libraries by the stage0 compiler. This should
enable us to avoid any stage0 hacks (like missing SIMD).
|
|
|
|
test command.
|
|
Use quiet tests by default
r? @eddyb
|
|
|
|
|
|
make is_tool inherent prop of mode
fix errors from rebase
resolve issues from review
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This avoids a full compiler build in order to build and/or run tests for
rustdoc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes #50711
|
|
./x.py test should be able to run individual tests
Allows user to be able to run individual tests by specifying filename i.e `./x.py test src/test/run-pass/foo.rs`
Fixes #48483
|
|
|
|
trim and pass relative test paths as test-args
use collect for getting test_args
move suite_path to ShouldRun and make Option
append existing args to test_args
use enum for PathSet
handle Suites differently from Paths
Error out if part of test suite but not file
refactor, make requested changes
|
|
Add some groundwork for cross-language LTO.
Implements part of #49879:
- Adds a `-Z cross-lang-lto` flag to rustc
- Makes sure that bitcode is embedded in object files if the flag is set.
This should already allow for using cross language LTO for staticlibs (where one has to invoke the linker manually anyway). However, `rustc` will not try to enable LTO for its own linker invocations yet.
r? @alexcrichton
|
|
Pass a test directory to rustfmt
Another attempt to fix the rustfmt tests. `RUSTFMT_TEST_DIR` is consumed by Rustfmt in the latext commit (thus the Rustfmt update) because we need a place to create temp files that won't be read-only.
r? @alexcrichton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This enables `./x.py test --stage 0 src/libstd --no-doc` and ensures the
stage2-rustc and rustdoc need to be built.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add "the Rustc book"
This PR introduces a new book into the documentation, "The rustc book". We already have books for Cargo, and for Rustdoc, rustc should have some too. This book is focused on *users* of rustc, and provides a nice place to write documentation for users.
I haven't put content here, but plan on scaffolding it out very soon, and wanted this PR open for a few discussions first. One of those is "what exactly should said TOC be?" I plan on having a proposed one up tomorrow, but figured I'd let people know to start thinking about it now.
The big one is that we also will want to put https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rustc-guide in-tree as well, and the naming is... tough. I'm proposing:
* doc.rust-lang.org/rustc is "The Rustc book", to mirror the other tools' books.
* doc.rust-lang.org/rustc-contribution is "The Rustc contribution guide", and contains that book
@nikomatsakis et al, any thoughts on this? I'm not attached to it in particular, but had to put something together to get this discussion going. I think mirroring the other tools is a good idea for this work, but am not sure where exactly that leaves yours.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-docs/team/issues/11
|
|
Avoid a tool being simultaneously test-pass and build-fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|