Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) #127799
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
This PR changes how LLVM is built. Consider updating src/bootstrap/download-ci-llvm-stamp. |
19 tasks
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd-refactor-7
branch
from
c51b910
to
1984a46
Compare
|
Didn't see anything wrong. @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? ``@onur-ozkan``
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2024
…=onur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? ```@onur-ozkan```
|
@bors rollup=never |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd-refactor-7
branch
from
1984a46
to
037b626
Compare
|
Rebased. @bors r=onur-ozkan |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
…nur-ozkan Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
…try> Bootstrap command refactoring: make command output API more bulletproof (step 7) Continuation of rust-lang#127680. This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just `run`, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller. This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr). Tracking issue: rust-lang#126819 r? `@onur-ozkan` try-job: x86_64-msvc
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
Now there are separate functions for running a command without capturing, running while capturing stdout and running while capturing everything. This should help avoid situations where stdout/stderr is accessed when it was not captured.
…ut/stderr If e.g. only stdout is captured, but the caller tries to read stderr, previously they would get back an empty string. Now the code will explicitly panic when accessing an uncaptured output stream.
Before, their stdout/stderr was forcefully set to `None`, even if the corresponding command tried to capture output.
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd-refactor-7
branch
from
5980328
to
abd8768
Compare
|
The problem was with storing stdout/stderr of commands that failed to even start. @rustbot ready |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
onur-ozkan
reviewed
Jul 28, 2024
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (1b51d80): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesResults (secondary -2.7%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 770.349s -> 770.165s (-0.02%) |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2024
[experiment] stage0 bump: test reverting bootstrap changes rust-lang#128083 failed with a stage0/stage1 mismatch. Try reverting rust-lang#127799 since it is the only thing that touched bootstrap since the last known success at rust-lang#128216.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Continuation of #127680.
This PR modifies the API of running commands to make it more explicit when a command is expected to produce programmatically handled output. Now if you call just
run, you cannot access the stdout/stderr by accident, because it will not be returned to the caller.This API change might be seen as overkill, let me know what do you think. In any case, I'd like to land the second commit, to make it harder to accidentally read stdout/stderr of commands that did not capture output (now you'd get an empty string as a result, but you should probably get a panic instead, if you try to read uncaptured stdout/stderr).
Tracking issue: #126819
r? @onur-ozkan
try-job: x86_64-msvc