| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
compiletest: Introduce `// {check,build,run}-pass` pass modes
Pass UI tests now have three modes
```
// check-pass
// build-pass
// run-pass
```
mirroring equivalent well-known `cargo` commands.
`// check-pass` will compile the test skipping codegen (which is expensive and isn't supposed to fail in most cases).
`// build-pass` will compile and link the test without running it.
`// run-pass` will compile, link and run the test.
Tests without a "pass" annotation are still considered "fail" tests.
Most UI tests would probably want to switch to `check-pass`.
Tests validating codegen would probably want to run the generated code as well and use `run-pass`.
`build-pass` should probably be rare (linking tests?).
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61755 will provide a way to run the tests with any mode, e.g. bump `check-pass` tests to `run-pass` to satisfy especially suspicious people, and be able to make sure that codegen doesn't breaks in some entirely unexpected way.
Tests marked with any mode are expected to pass with any other mode, if that's not the case for some legitimate reason, then the test should be made a "fail" test rather than a "pass" test.
Perhaps some secondary CI can verify this invariant, but that's not super urgent.
`// compile-pass` still works and is equivalent to `build-pass`.
Why is `// compile-pass` bad - 1) it gives an impression that the test is only compiled, but not linked, 2) it doesn't mirror a cargo command.
It can be removed some time in the future in a separate PR.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix a number of uncovered deficiencies in diagnostics
|
|
|
|
I also added `// skip-codegen` to each one, to address potential concerns
that this change would otherwise slow down our test suite spending time
generating code for files that are really just meant to be checks of
compiler diagnostics.
(However, I will say: My preference is to not use `// skip-codegen` if
one can avoid it. We can use all the testing of how we drive LLVM that
we can get...)
(Updated post rebase.)
|
|
Suggest to remove prefix `b` in cfg attribute lint string
Closes #54926
r? @estebank
|
|
|
|
Co-Authored-By: csmoe <csmoe@msn.com>
|
|
Co-Authored-By: csmoe <csmoe@msn.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does not implement the warning or a feature flag.
|
|
|
