Skip to content

Conversation

durin42
Copy link
Contributor

@durin42 durin42 commented Sep 9, 2025

Bazel requires knowledge of outputs from actions at analysis time, including file or directory name. In order to work around the lack of predictable output name for dwo files, we group the dwo files in a subdirectory of --out-dir as a post-processing step before returning control to bazel. Unfortunately some debugging workflows rely on directly opening the dwo file rather than loading the merged dwp file, and our trick of moving the files breaks those users. We can't just hardlink the file or copy it, because with remote build execution we wouldn't end up with the un-moved file copied back to the developer's workstation. As a fix, we add this unstable flag that causes dwo files to be written to a build-system-controllable location, which then lets bazel hoover up the dwo files, but the objects also have the correct path for the dwo files.

r? @davidtwco

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 9, 2025
Copy link
Member

@davidtwco davidtwco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

r=me w/ @Urgau's comments addressed

View changes since this review

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 17, 2025
…irectory

Bazel requires knowledge of outputs from actions at analysis time,
including file or directory name. In order to work around the lack of
predictable output name for dwo files, we group the dwo files in a
subdirectory of --out-dir as a post-processing step before returning
control to bazel. Unfortunately some debugging workflows rely on
directly opening the dwo file rather than loading the merged dwp file,
and our trick of moving the files breaks those users. We can't just
hardlink the file or copy it, because with remote build execution we
wouldn't end up with the un-moved file copied back to the developer's
workstation. As a fix, we add this unstable flag that causes dwo files
to be written to a build-system-controllable location, which then lets
bazel hoover up the dwo files, but the objects also have the correct
path for the dwo files.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 26, 2025

The run-make-support library was changed

cc @jieyouxu

@rustbot rustbot added the A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs label Sep 26, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 26, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 29, 2025

📌 Commit eb3fb45 has been approved by davidtwco

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Sep 29, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 29, 2025

⌛ Testing commit eb3fb45 with merge dc2c356...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 29, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing dc2c356 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 29, 2025
@bors bors merged commit dc2c356 into rust-lang:master Sep 29, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.92.0 milestone Sep 29, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

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 21a13b8 (parent) -> dc2c356 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard dc2c3564d273cf8ccce32dc4f47eaa27063bceb9 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 2839.7s -> 2478.1s (-12.7%)
  2. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 3264.9s -> 2893.3s (-11.4%)
  3. dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl: 5310.7s -> 4766.7s (-10.2%)
  4. aarch64-apple: 9081.0s -> 9994.0s (10.1%)
  5. aarch64-msvc-1: 7219.4s -> 6535.5s (-9.5%)
  6. dist-ohos-aarch64: 4596.6s -> 4189.4s (-8.9%)
  7. dist-various-1: 4135.2s -> 3774.7s (-8.7%)
  8. aarch64-gnu-llvm-20-1: 3950.6s -> 3617.6s (-8.4%)
  9. x86_64-mingw-1: 10909.3s -> 9992.3s (-8.4%)
  10. dist-riscv64-linux: 5381.4s -> 4969.1s (-7.7%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (dc2c356): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
1.0% [1.0%, 1.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.0%, secondary 0.2%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
3.0% [3.0%, 3.0%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.1% [2.0%, 2.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-1.6% [-2.4%, -1.0%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 3.0% [3.0%, 3.0%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.9% [-3.2%, -2.6%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 470.943s -> 470.099s (-0.18%)
Artifact size: 387.66 MiB -> 387.67 MiB (0.00%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants