Skip to content

Conversation

@dianqk
Copy link
Member

@dianqk dianqk commented Oct 9, 2025

Fixes #146742.

After #146124, we need more space to run x86_64-gnu-distcheck if building LLVM from source. According to the building log, the space freed by free-disk-space-linux.sh is not entirely available.

You are running out of disk space. 
The runner will stop working when the machine runs out of disk space. 
Free space left: 98 MB

disk usage:
Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/root        72G   43G   29G  60% /
tmpfs           7.9G   84K  7.9G   1% /dev/shm
tmpfs           3.2G  1.2M  3.2G   1% /run
tmpfs           5.0M     0  5.0M   0% /run/lock
/dev/sda16      881M   60M  760M   8% /boot
/dev/sda15      105M  6.2M   99M   6% /boot/efi
/dev/sdb1        74G   28K   70G   1% /mnt
tmpfs           1.6G   12K  1.6G   1% /run/user/1001

@rustbot rustbot added A-CI Area: Our Github Actions CI A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 9, 2025
@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 9, 2025

@bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-distcheck

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 9, 2025
Update LLVM to 21.1.3

try-job: x86_64-gnu-distcheck
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Oct 9, 2025

💔 Test for d6659ce failed: CI. Failed jobs:

@rustbot rustbot added the A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc label Oct 9, 2025
@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 9, 2025

@bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-distcheck

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 9, 2025
Update LLVM to 21.1.3

try-job: x86_64-gnu-distcheck
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@dianqk dianqk marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2025 15:25
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 9, 2025
@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Oct 9, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 9, 2025

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
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
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 9, 2025

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Oct 9, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: bfdd4ca (bfdd4ca14dcc7a1a42c76b7c45521bde578bc92c, parent: acf243778e6c54cb7d54bee4be88e510e4be123e)

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 9, 2025

r? @cuviper
r? @jieyouxu

@rustbot rustbot assigned cuviper and jieyouxu and unassigned Mark-Simulacrum Oct 9, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 9, 2025

jieyouxu is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 9, 2025

@cuviper
69215a1 should fix the backported error.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

cc @marcoieni (largedisk runner)

.current_dir(plain_src_dir)
.run(builder);
// Mitigate pressure on small-capacity disks.
fs::remove_dir_all(plain_src_dir).unwrap();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should these be builder.remove_dir(..)?

But anyway, somehow this unwrap failed NotFound when I tried it on beta:
#147571 (comment)

I'm not sure how that can be when it was the current_dir of the commands just before!

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I found there is a dry run before.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, I was close to the answer with my suggested change, and didn't even realize it! 😅

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Oct 10, 2025

@bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-distcheck

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2025
Update LLVM to 21.1.3

try-job: x86_64-gnu-distcheck
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Oct 10, 2025

💔 Test for b118d5e failed: CI. Failed jobs:

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 10, 2025

@bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-distcheck

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2025
Update LLVM to 21.1.3

try-job: x86_64-gnu-distcheck
@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Oct 11, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 36c699a (36c699a1a26b4eb1f67c83ab5ae72b041793ad03, parent: 9725c4baacef19345e13f91b27e66e10ef5592ae)

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 11, 2025

@bors r=cuviper,Kobzol rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 11, 2025

📌 Commit a3482d9 has been approved by cuviper,Kobzol

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 Oct 11, 2025
@jieyouxu jieyouxu removed their assignment Oct 11, 2025
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2025
[beta] backports

- Don't normalize higher-ranked assumptions if they're not used #147299
- Fix target list of `link_section` #147418
- bootstrap: add `Builder::rustc_cmd` that includes the lib path #147419
- Update LLVM to 21.1.2 #146953
- Remove the temporary directory when a check ends -- part of #147518

r? cuviper
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 13, 2025

⌛ Testing commit a3482d9 with merge 3545698...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 13, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cuviper,Kobzol
Pushing 3545698 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Oct 13, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 3545698 into rust-lang:master Oct 13, 2025
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.92.0 milestone Oct 13, 2025
@github-actions
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 36e4f5d (parent) -> 3545698 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 11 test diffs

Stage 2

  • [run-make] tests/run-make/compressed-debuginfo-zstd: pass -> ignore (ignored if LLVM wasn't build with zstd for ELF section compression or LLVM is not the default codegen backend) (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/nvptx-safe-naming.rs#LLVM20: ignore (ignored when the LLVM version (21.1.2) is newer than majorversion 20) -> ignore (ignored when the LLVM version (21.1.3) is newer than majorversion 20) (J1)
  • [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/enum/enum-discriminant-eq.rs#LLVM20: ignore (ignored when the LLVM version (21.1.2) is newer than majorversion 20) -> ignore (ignored when the LLVM version (21.1.3) is newer than majorversion 20) (J1)
  • [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/issues/issue-122600-ptr-discriminant-update.rs#new: ignore (ignored when the LLVM version 21.1.2 is older than 22.0.0) -> ignore (ignored when the LLVM version 21.1.3 is older than 22.0.0) (J1)
  • [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/vec_pop_push_noop.rs#new: ignore (ignored when the LLVM version 21.1.2 is older than 22.0.0) -> ignore (ignored when the LLVM version 21.1.3 is older than 22.0.0) (J1)
  • [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/vecdeque_pop_push.rs#new: ignore (ignored when the LLVM version 21.1.2 is older than 22.0.0) -> ignore (ignored when the LLVM version 21.1.3 is older than 22.0.0) (J1)
  • [ui] tests/ui/sanitizer/kcfi-arity-requires-llvm-21-0-0.rs: ignore (ignored when the LLVM version (21.1.2) is newer than majorversion 20) -> ignore (ignored when the LLVM version (21.1.3) is newer than majorversion 20) (J2)

Additionally, 4 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 35456985fab3419baf4bf111b8bbbd5e8565615d --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-rust-for-linux: 2737.6s -> 3601.5s (31.6%)
  2. pr-check-1: 1629.5s -> 2104.9s (29.2%)
  3. dist-aarch64-linux: 8815.6s -> 6309.8s (-28.4%)
  4. dist-android: 1521.6s -> 1094.2s (-28.1%)
  5. x86_64-gnu-miri: 4617.7s -> 5464.7s (18.3%)
  6. arm-android: 6136.0s -> 7190.9s (17.2%)
  7. dist-x86_64-apple: 6119.8s -> 7136.2s (16.6%)
  8. x86_64-gnu-tools: 3698.3s -> 4264.0s (15.3%)
  9. dist-ohos-x86_64: 4105.2s -> 4685.5s (14.1%)
  10. x86_64-gnu: 7090.6s -> 8089.6s (14.1%)
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 (3545698): 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 (primary 4.8%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
4.8% [3.3%, 6.4%] 2
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 4.8% [3.3%, 6.4%] 2

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.4%)

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)
2.2% [2.2%, 2.2%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.5% [-4.5%, -2.5%] 4
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (secondary -0.0%)

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)
-0.0% [-0.0%, -0.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Bootstrap: 473.739s -> 474.753s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 388.11 MiB -> 388.13 MiB (0.01%)

@dianqk dianqk deleted the update-llvm branch October 13, 2025 09:47
@wzssyqa
Copy link
Contributor

wzssyqa commented Oct 20, 2025

I met a problem with this commit:
the commit 4f74b76fb69688474e073fb26b316d9ea571388f of https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project seems not in any branch. So my git mirrorer cannot get this commit.

@dianqk
Copy link
Member Author

dianqk commented Oct 20, 2025

I met a problem with this commit: the commit 4f74b76fb69688474e073fb26b316d9ea571388f of https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project seems not in any branch. So my git mirrorer cannot get this commit.

Hmm. How did the CI pass? Anyway, I pushed (again?).
Thank you for this report.

@wzssyqa
Copy link
Contributor

wzssyqa commented Oct 20, 2025

I met a problem with this commit: the commit 4f74b76fb69688474e073fb26b316d9ea571388f of https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project seems not in any branch. So my git mirrorer cannot get this commit.

Hmm. How did the CI pass?

it does exist in the git, but not in any branch.
so git fetch 4f74b76fb69688474e073fb26b316d9ea571388f can success.

Anyway, I pushed (again?). Thank you for this report.

@nikic
Copy link
Contributor

nikic commented Oct 20, 2025

IIRC this happens when you push the commit to a fork. Github manages all the forks together, so you can still fetch the commit by ID. I've made this mistake with LLVM updates in the past as well...

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

Labels

A-CI Area: Our Github Actions CI A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc 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-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Matching on enums with optimizations enabled causes rustc-LLVM errors on the nvptx64-nvidia-cuda target