Skip to content

rust: update to 1.79.0#21141

Merged
ognevny merged 3 commits into
msys2:masterfrom
filnet:rust
Jun 14, 2024
Merged

rust: update to 1.79.0#21141
ognevny merged 3 commits into
msys2:masterfrom
filnet:rust

Conversation

@filnet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@filnet filnet commented Jun 12, 2024

No description provided.

@filnet filnet changed the title rust: rust: update to 1.79.0 rust: update to 1.79.0 Jun 12, 2024
@ognevny
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ognevny commented Jun 12, 2024

I've rerun jobs now, server back online

@ognevny ognevny marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2024 16:41
@ognevny
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ognevny commented Jun 12, 2024

CI is green

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jeremyd2019 jeremyd2019 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we consider #20651 at this point (minus the ci change) rather than this straight update? I'd like to figure out which PR to make suggestions on 😉

@filnet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

filnet commented Jun 12, 2024

I want to keep the rust test branch open for testing (i.e. with the ci changes).

So the question is what do we want to move here ? Everything ?

@ognevny
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ognevny commented Jun 12, 2024

I'd rather to push an update separately

@jeremyd2019
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think we would want these patches at least:

   "https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/eac0b3a1d1b8d1db8fa95c50e118de5b9471e5af.patch"
   "https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/commit/adc9f5ca6205a7bde95b5f1a3f029e590ce6c694.patch"
   "https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/commit/e15130618237eb3e2d4b622549f9647b4c1d9ca3.patch"

Also it would be a good opportunity to move the moving of the src files into build instead of package function like the doc files.

Otherwise, the other PR only changes the check function and checkdepends. Those should be safe enough.

@ognevny
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ognevny commented Jun 12, 2024

I think we would want these patches at least:

   "https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/eac0b3a1d1b8d1db8fa95c50e118de5b9471e5af.patch"
   "https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/commit/adc9f5ca6205a7bde95b5f1a3f029e590ce6c694.patch"
   "https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/commit/e15130618237eb3e2d4b622549f9647b4c1d9ca3.patch"

Also it would be a good opportunity to move the moving of the src files into build instead of package function like the doc files.

Otherwise, the other PR only changes the check function and checkdepends. Those should be safe enough.

ok. feel free to do it :)

@filnet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

filnet commented Jun 12, 2024

I'll do the suggested changes.

Comment thread mingw-w64-rust/PKGBUILD Outdated
@filnet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

filnet commented Jun 12, 2024

@mati865 this release of Rust includes a contribution of yours : rust-lang/rust#121712

@jeremyd2019 jeremyd2019 marked this pull request as draft June 12, 2024 17:34
@filnet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

filnet commented Jun 12, 2024

I am pretty sure I created the PR as a draft... or wanted to do so...

@ognevny
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ognevny commented Jun 12, 2024

I am pretty sure I created the PR as a draft... or wanted to do so...

I thought it's ok to merge, sorry 😁

@jeremyd2019
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think we would want these patches at least:

   "https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/eac0b3a1d1b8d1db8fa95c50e118de5b9471e5af.patch"
   "https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/commit/adc9f5ca6205a7bde95b5f1a3f029e590ce6c694.patch"
   "https://github.com/rust-lang/backtrace-rs/commit/e15130618237eb3e2d4b622549f9647b4c1d9ca3.patch"

The last two are already present in 1.79.0. Sorry for the mistake.

filnet added 2 commits June 13, 2024 23:51
The tests\ui\issues\issue-2214.rs test fails with undefined reference to `__sinl_internal' and other math functions.

Mateusz Mikuła analyzed the issue and found that the root cause is this change in mingw-w64: mingw-w64/mingw-w64@a64c1f4

The error happens because Rust pulls in lgamma from libmingwex.a, which pulls in sin from libmsvcrt.a, which in turn tries to pull in __sinl_internal from libmingwex.a and fails because of how Rust links MinGW libs.
The proposed fix was to add an extra "-lmingwex" after the second "-lmsvcrt" in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/aa6a697a1c75b0aa06954136f7641706edadc2be/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/base/windows_gnu.rs#L30.
@jeremyd2019 jeremyd2019 requested review from jeremyd2019 and removed request for jeremyd2019 June 14, 2024 00:41
This matches what was already being done for the split docs package.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jeremyd2019 jeremyd2019 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that's everything, with the possible exception of including the changes to the check function/checkdepends from #20651, which shouldn't hurt anything since they are never used by any automated process (such as msys2-autobuild)

@filnet filnet marked this pull request as ready for review June 14, 2024 08:50
@filnet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

filnet commented Jun 14, 2024

LGTM

@ognevny ognevny merged commit 17af218 into msys2:master Jun 14, 2024
@jeremyd2019
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mati865 this release of Rust includes a contribution of yours : rust-lang/rust#121712

Would that make it possible to bootstrap -gnullvm, or does the bootstrap require a native rustc for the target?

@mati865
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

mati865 commented Jun 14, 2024

Maybe it would be possible to hack it to cross compiler but proper bootstrap requires native build.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants