-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
compiletest: clarify COMPILETEST_NEEDS_ALL_LLVM_COMPONENTS error #125710
Conversation
r? @wesleywiser rustbot has assigned @wesleywiser. Use |
Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest cc @jieyouxu |
also improve wording for an ignore reason
3c61b9b
to
4ce7e09
Compare
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (434999e): 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)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 670.547s -> 672.444s (0.28%) |
Revert "tidy: validate LLVM component names in tests" This reverts rust-lang#125472. This has already caused a [bit](rust-lang#125702) of [trouble](rust-lang#125710), and I was mistaken about the original motivation--incorrect component names [_will_](rust-lang#125702 (comment)) be detected by a full CI run. I no longer think it pulls its weight. r? `@workingjubilee`
Revert "tidy: validate LLVM component names in tests" This reverts #125472. This has already caused a [bit](rust-lang/rust#125702) of [trouble](rust-lang/rust#125710), and I was mistaken about the original motivation--incorrect component names [_will_](rust-lang/rust#125702 (comment)) be detected by a full CI run. I no longer think it pulls its weight. r? `@workingjubilee`
Revert "tidy: validate LLVM component names in tests" This reverts #125472. This has already caused a [bit](rust-lang/rust#125702) of [trouble](rust-lang/rust#125710), and I was mistaken about the original motivation--incorrect component names [_will_](rust-lang/rust#125702 (comment)) be detected by a full CI run. I no longer think it pulls its weight. r? `@workingjubilee`
COMPILETEST_NEEDS_ALL_LLVM_COMPONENTS is a confusing name because elsewhere "needs" means "ignore when requirement not met", but here it means "fail when requirement not met".