Revert "Fix linking statics on Arm64EC #140176" #141024
Conversation
Unfortunately, multiple people are reporting linker warnings related to `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` after this change. The solution isn't quite clear yet, let's revert to green for now, and try a reland with a determined solution for `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This reverts commit c8b7f32, reversing changes made to 667247d.
rustbot
added
A-run-make
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa These commits modify compiler targets. |
|
Nominating this for beta backport because people are reporting seeing the linker warning in bootstrapping as well. However, the beta backport is a "pick your poison" situation, where we avoid the linker warnings in Tier 1 @rustbot label: +beta-nominated |
rustbot
added
the
beta-nominated
|
CI is green. |
|
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
What is this?This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.Comparing a69bc17 (parent) -> b0e9259 (this PR) Test differencesShow 3 test diffsStage 1
Stage 2
Job group index
Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard b0e925903a04fc3b2e0903ce6110938e871c61a1 --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (b0e9259): 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)Results (primary -1.6%, secondary -2.0%)This 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.
CyclesResults (secondary -0.0%)This 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: 774.345s -> 775.66s (0.17%) |
This reverts PR #140176.
Unfortunately, this will reopen #138541 (re-breaking the
arm64ec-pc-windows-msvctarget).Unfortunately, multiple people are reporting linker warnings related to
__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstableafter this change inx86_64-pc-windows-msvcas well. The solution isn't quite clear yet, let's revert to avoid the linker warnings on the Tier 1 MSVC target for now1, and try a reland with a determined solution for__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable.Judging from people reporting that they are observing this also when bootstrapping w/ stage0 rustc, we may have to cut a new beta and then repoint stage0 against that newer beta?
cc @dpaoliello @wesleywiser
r? @wesleywiser (or compiler)
Footnotes
Note that it's still RustWeek this week, so most team members are N/A. ↩