CI: use smaller machines in PR runs
mingw-check job-linux-16c -> job-linux-4c
~job-linux-4c 20 min in auto job
~job-linux-16c 13 min in pr job
with current pr regressed to almost 21 min, it's ok.
mingw-check-tidy job-linux-16c -> job-linux-4c small enough, so reduce to minimal
~ job-linux-16c 3 min
with current pr regressed to almost 5 min, it's ok.
x86_64-gnu-tools job-linux-16c this is top job by time in PR, so don't touch it
~ job-linux-8c 1.30 hour in auto job
~ job-linux-16c 1 hour in pr job (affected by #114613, actual time ~ 30 min)
x86_64-gnu-llvm-15 job-linux-16c don't change too
~ job-linux-8c 1.30 hour in auto job
~ job-linux-16c 30 min in pr job
Noticed while working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114621, so current time affected by always rebuilded docker images (but pr images always rebuilded before too, so nvm)
Mention style for new syntax in tracking issue template
`@rust-lang/style` would like the specification of new syntax in the style guide to be part of the feature stabilization process, in order to avoid situations where new syntax is stabilized and it never has style specified or formatting implemented for it. This most recently occurred with [let-else](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/07/01/rustfmt-supports-let-else-statements.html). We've made a lot of progress with the [nightly style procedure](https://github.com/rust-lang/style-team/blob/master/nightly-style-procedure.md) to unblock rustfmt from experimenting with formatting for new syntax, and T-style's existence means we actually have people who are willing and qualified to make decisions about formatting specification.
This check-box should also perhaps include "formatting support implemented in rustfmt", but that's really up to `@rust-lang/rustfmt,` so I'm not volunteering them for any new responsibilities in this PR just yet.
Putting this up mostly to discuss with T-lang, though feedback welcome from anyone.
---
As more of an implementation detail: alternatively, instead of a this could be just added to the existing rustc-dev-guide chapter(s) on stabilization.
r? `@ghost`
CI: include workflow name in concurrency group
Currently, this won't change anything, because we only have one relevant workflow (`CI`), but for future proofing we should probably include the workflow name in the concurrency group.
Found by ``@klensy`` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113059#discussion_r1247213606).
Currently, this won't change anything, because we only have one relevant workflow (`CI`), but for future proofing we should probably include the workflow name in the concurrency group.
Github action to periodically `cargo update` to keep dependencies current
Opens a PR periodically with the results of `cargo update`. If an unmerged PR for the branch `cargo_update` already exists, it will edit then reopen it if necessary.
~~This also uses [`cargo-upgrades`](https://gitlab.com/kornelski/cargo-upgrades) to provide a list of available major upgrades in the PR body.~~
It includes the list of changes output by `cargo update` in the commit message and PR body. Note that this output is currently sub-optimal due to https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/9408, but if updates are made more regularly that is less likely to show up.
Example PR: https://github.com/pitaj/rust/pull/2
Example action run: https://github.com/pitaj/rust/actions/runs/5035731903
Prior discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/dependabot.20updates.3F
Up for discussion:
- What period do we want? Currently weekly
- What user should it use? Currently "Github Actions"
- Do we need the extra security of provided by executing `cargo update` and `cargo-upgrades` in a separate job?
If not I can simplify it to not need artifacts.
- PR message wording
- PR should probably always be `rollup=always`?
- What branch should it use?
- What should it do if no updates are available? Currently fails the job on empty commit
- Should the yml file live in `src/ci` instead of directly under workflows?
- ~~Is using the latest nightly toolchain enough to ensure compatibility with `Cargo.lock` and `Cargo.toml`s in master?~~
Now pulls the bootstrap version from stage0.json
r? infra
- Keep Cargo.lock dependencies current
- Presents output from `cargo update` in commit and PR
- Edit existing open PR, otherwise open a new one
- Skip if existing open PR is S-waiting-on-bors
Remove aws cli install.
All runner images have the AWS CLI 2 installed, so there isn't a really strong reason to install our own version anymore.
The version we were installing was 1.27.122. The runner images currently have 2.11.x (the exact version varies by image).
I do not have the means to really test if the new version has any issues. I looked at all the `aws` commands, and none of them seem to be doing anything unusual. The page at https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/userguide/cliv2-migration-changes.html contains a list of all the breaking changes, and I didn't see anything that looked important.
Optimize builder sizes
The infra-team is continuously monitoring the efficiency of the CI system in an effort to improve overall build times and resource usage. Some builders have used much less than their allocated resources, so we are testing smaller builder sizes for them.
r? `@pietroalbini`
The infra-team is continuously monitoring the efficiency of the build
system in an effort to improve overall build times and resource usage.
The builders for some of the `x86_64-gnu` targets have used much less
resources than allocated in the past, so we are testing a smaller
builder size for them.
The infra-team is continuously monitoring the efficiency of the build
system in an effort to improve overall build times and resource usage.
The builder for the `mingw-check` target have used much less resources
than allocated in the past, so we are testing a smaller builder size for
it.
The infra-team is continuously monitoring the efficiency of the build
system in an effort to improve overall build times and resource usage.
The builders for the `i686-gnu` targets have used much less resources
than allocated in the past, so we are testing a smaller builder size for
them.
Spelling misc
These two files seem to be fairly distinct from everything else.
That said, if this project doesn't like changing changelogs, I'm happy to drop the changes to `RELEASES.md`
Like #107044, this will let us track compatibility with LLVM 16 going
forward, especially after we eventually upgrade our own to the next.
This also drops `tidy` here and in `x86_64-gnu-llvm-15`, syncing with
that change in #106085.
These builders aren't particularly high on overall average CPU usage and finish in typically around
30 minutes. Cutting their core counts will hopefully not significantly increase wall-time while
cutting costs, allowing us to shift some of the wins into our slower builders.
For now this keeps all the configuration identical (AFAICT) but we'll
likely want to play with the specifics to move some of the slower
builders to larger machines and the faster builders to smaller machines,
likely reducing overall usage and improving CI times.
Previously, it would only run on changes to subtrees, submodules, or select directories.
That made it so that changes to the compiler that broke tools would only be detected on a full bors merge.
This makes it so the tools builder runs by default, making it easier to catch breaking changes to clippy (which was the most effected).
Enable Cargo's sparse protocol in CI
This enables the sparse protocol in CI in order to exercise and dogfood it. This is intended test the production server in a real-world situation.
Closes#107342
Include both md and yaml ICE ticket templates
* Existing compilers link to the md version
* The YAML version field for the backtrace *doesn't let us paste a full backtrace*
* We will need the YAML version in order to be able to submit reports once we start storing the backtrace to disk
Follow up to #106831. Reaction to #106874, which made me realize that *really* long backtraces are rejected by GitHub Forms. A single backtrace won't hit this, but ICEs sometimes compound.
Port pgo.sh to Python
This PR ports the `pgo.sh` multi stage build file from bash to Python, to make it easier to add new functionality and gather statistics. Main changes:
1) `pgo.sh` rewritten from Bash to Python. Jump from ~200 Bash LOC to ~650 Python LOC. Bash is, unsurprisingly, more concise for running scripts and binaries.
2) Better logging. Each separate stage is now clearly separated in logs, and the logs can be quickly grepped to find out which stage has completed or failed, and how long it took.
3) Better statistics. At the end of the run, there is now a table that shows the duration of the individual stages, along with a percentual ratio of the total workflow run:
```
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9896916Z stage-build INFO: Timer results
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9902185Z ---------------------------------------------------------
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9902605Z Build rustc (LLVM PGO): 1815.67s (21.47%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9902949Z Gather profiles (LLVM PGO): 418.73s ( 4.95%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9903269Z Build rustc (rustc PGO): 584.46s ( 6.91%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9903835Z Gather profiles (rustc PGO): 806.32s ( 9.53%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9904154Z Build rustc (LLVM BOLT): 1662.92s (19.66%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9904464Z Gather profiles (LLVM BOLT): 715.18s ( 8.46%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9914463Z Final build: 2454.00s (29.02%)
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9914798Z Total duration: 8457.27s
2023-01-15T18:13:49.9915305Z ---------------------------------------------------------
```
A sample run can be seen [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/3923980164/jobs/6707932029).
I tried to keep the code compatible with Python 3.6 and don't use dependencies, which required me to reimplement some small pieces of functionality (like formatting bytes). I suppose that it shouldn't be so hard to upgrade to a newer Python or install dependencies in the CI container, but I'd like to avoid it if it won't be needed.
The code is in a single file `stage-build.py`, so it's a bit cluttered. I can also separate it into multiple files, although having it in a single file has some benefits. The code could definitely be nicer, but I'm a bit wary of introducing a lot of abstraction and similar stuff, as long as the code is stuffed into a single file.
Currently, the Python pipeline should faithfully mirror the bash pipeline one by one. After this PR, I'd like to try to optimize it, e.g. by caching the LLVM builds on S3.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
* Existing compilers link to the md version
* The YAML version field for the backtrace *doesn't let us paste a full backtrace*
* We will need the YAML version in order to be able to submit reports once we start storing the backtrace to disk
This duplicates mingw-check into two jobs where one job
runs `tidy` only while the other job does not. The tidy
job will not cancel other jobs on failure.
Enable ThinLTO for rustc on `x86_64-apple-darwin`
Local measurements seemed to show an improvement on a couple benchmarks, so I'd like to test real CI builds, and see if the builder doesn't timeout with the expected slight increase in build times.
Let's start with x64 rustc ThinLTO, and then figure out the file structure to configure LLVM ThinLTO. Maybe we'll then try `aarch64` builds since that also looked good locally.
Enable ThinLTO for rustc on x64 msvc
This applies the great work from `@bjorn3` and `@Kobzol` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/101403 to x64 msvc.
Here are the local results for the try build `68c5c85ed759334a11f0b0e586f5032a23f85ce4`, compared to its parent `0a6b941df354c59b546ec4c0d27f2b9b0cb1162c`. Looking better than my previous local builds.
(I can't show cycle counts, as that option is failing on the windows version of the perf collector, but I'll try to analyze and debug this soon)
This will be the first of a few tests for rustc / llvm / both ThinLTO on the windows and mac targets.
Distribute bootstrap in CI
This pre-compiles bootstrap from source and adds it to the existing `rust-dev` component. There are two main goals here:
1. Make it faster to build rust from source, both the first time and incrementally
2. Make it easier to add non-python entrypoints, since they can call out to bootstrap directly rather than having to figure out the right flags to pre-compile it. This second part is still in a bit of flux, see the tracking issue below for more information.
There are also several changes to make bootstrap able to run on a machine other than the one it was built (particularly around `config.src` and `config.out` detection). I (`@jyn514)` am slightly concerned these will regress unless tested - maybe we should add an automated test that runs bootstrap in a chroot or something? Unclear whether the effort is worth the test coverage.
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94829.
- Add a new `bootstrap` component
Originally, we planned to combine this with the `rust-dev` component.
However, I realized that would force LLVM to be redownloaded whenever bootstrap is modified.
LLVM is a much larger download, so split this to get better caching.
- Build bootstrap for all tier 1 and 2 targets
See comment added for details on the test builder restriction. This is primarily
intended for macOS CI, but is likely to be a slight win on other builders too.
