Skip to content

rustc_target: import TargetMetadata #136953

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 17, 2025
Merged

rustc_target: import TargetMetadata #136953

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 17, 2025

Conversation

ken-matsui
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 13, 2025

r? @oli-obk

rustbot has assigned @oli-obk.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@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 Feb 13, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 13, 2025

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@ken-matsui ken-matsui force-pushed the import-target-metadata branch from 78f4703 to d76640b Compare February 13, 2025 01:16
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 13, 2025

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Feb 13, 2025

I don't see the benefit of importing something that is only used once over using the full path. Either solution seems fine, but changing a lot of code just to pick one option over the other is missing a rationale for me. Can you explain the reason for it? Was there some discussion about further changes that may benefit from doing this now?

@ken-matsui
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't see the benefit of importing something that is only used once over using the full path. Either solution seems fine, but changing a lot of code just to pick one option over the other is missing a rationale for me. Can you explain the reason for it? Was there some discussion about further changes that may benefit from doing this now?

With that idea, I think other identifiers like TargetOptions should also be a fully qualified names. There wasn't such a discussion, but I didn't feel it was reasonable to keep the inconsistency while I was writing a new target. Every time someone creates a PR to add a new target, will you guys instruct them to make TargetOptions imported but TargetMetadata an FQN? I would say my change makes sense to prevent future contributors from being confused.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 15, 2025

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #137046) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

I agree it's super inconsistent right now, so I am in favor of churning it one way or the other.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Feb 15, 2025

Makes sense, but someone who actually knows about rustc_target should review this or make a decision in either direction. Who'd be a good person to assign?

@ken-matsui
Copy link
Contributor Author

While assigning someone, allow me to put my two cents in on the direction. If we go with FQNs, we'll have crate::spec::TargetOptions and crate::spec::TargetMetadata, which sound redundant. Having just TargetOptions and TargetMetadata looks clearer to me even if they are used once. Just my two cents - the assignee should ultimately decide, of course.

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

ah, well, rustc_target-knower speaking

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

I believe the TargetMetadata was introduced by @Noratrieb.

I think importing it in all specs so all specs look consistent on this point is fine, but if @Noratrieb has a strong opinion on this another way I'm somewhat inclined to defer to her.

@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

I used an absolute path because I could not be bothered to add an additional import while touching like 300 files.

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

I figured so!

Yeah, @ken-matsui rebase this?

@ken-matsui ken-matsui force-pushed the import-target-metadata branch from d76640b to b660382 Compare February 16, 2025 22:58
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

workingjubilee commented Feb 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

bitrot-prone (but probably actually fine to roll up)

@bors r+ p=1 rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 16, 2025

📌 Commit b660382 has been approved by workingjubilee

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-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 16, 2025
workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2025
@workingjubilee
Rollup merge of rust-lang#136953 - ken-matsui:import-target-metadata,…
b044822 
… r=workingjubilee

rustc_target: import TargetMetadata
@workingjubilee workingjubilee mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2025
Closed
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#137153 - workingjubilee:rollup-1cjmnuh, r=wor…
57fb317 
…kingjubilee

Rollup of 12 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#136671 (Overhaul `rustc_middle::limits`)
 - rust-lang#136817 (Pattern Migration 2024: clean up and comment)
 - rust-lang#136844 (Use `const_error!` when possible)
 - rust-lang#136953 (rustc_target: import TargetMetadata)
 - rust-lang#137095 (Replace some u64 hashes with Hash64)
 - rust-lang#137100 (HIR analysis: Remove unnecessary abstraction over list of clauses)
 - rust-lang#137105 (Restrict DerefPure for Cow<T> impl to T = impl Clone, [impl Clone], str.)
 - rust-lang#137120 (Enable `relative-path-include-bytes-132203` rustdoc-ui test on Windows)
 - rust-lang#137125 (Re-add missing empty lines in the releases notes)
 - rust-lang#137140 (Fix const items not being allowed to be called `r#move` or `r#static`)
 - rust-lang#137145 (use add-core-stubs / minicore for a few more tests)
 - rust-lang#137149 (Remove SSE ABI from i586-pc-windows-msvc)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 17, 2025

⌛ Testing commit b660382 with merge d5eb31c...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 17, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: workingjubilee
Pushing d5eb31c to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Feb 17, 2025
@bors bors merged commit d5eb31c into rust-lang:master Feb 17, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.87.0 milestone Feb 17, 2025
@ken-matsui ken-matsui deleted the import-target-metadata branch February 17, 2025 05:34
This was referenced Feb 17, 2025
Open
Merged
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d5eb31c): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -3.8%)

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -3.8% [-3.8%, -3.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.8%)

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.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -2.8% [-3.9%, -2.2%] 19
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 789.602s -> 789.735s (0.02%)
Artifact size: 350.17 MiB -> 350.22 MiB (0.02%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@workingjubilee workingjubilee

Labels
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
Milestone
1.87.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@ken-matsui @rustbot @rust-log-analyzer @oli-obk @bors @workingjubilee @Noratrieb @rust-timer