bootstrap: Overhaul and simplify the tool_check_step! macro
#134950
Merged
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 has assigned @albertlarsan68. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
tool-check-step
branch
from
e4a3b52 to
330d54c
Compare
jieyouxu
approved these changes
Dec 31, 2024
Comment on lines
+450
to
+462
| // Currently, all of the tools that use this macro/function are in-tree. | ||
| // If support for out-of-tree tools is re-added in the future, those | ||
| // steps should probably be marked non-default so that the default | ||
| // checks aren't affected by toolstate being broken. | ||
| SourceType::InTree, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rust-lang/bootstrap do you know if there's a specific reason we support out-of-tree tools? Does idk distros or some other consumer rely on this support?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like the general concept of SourceType was introduced in #73297, to control whether warnings are denied by default or not.
At that time, none of the uses of tool_check_step! specified a source type other than InTree. So it's plausible that this macro has never actually been used with out-of-tree tools.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also note that this PR only removes explicit SourceType support from one particular macro. If an “out of tree” tool hypothetically needed to be added, it shouldn't be much trouble to either adjust this macro, or declare an alternative step or macro.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I'm in favor of removing this unused code. If we need support for non-InTree tools, we can add it back when the need arises.
jieyouxu
added
S-waiting-on-team
|
Aside: I was amused to find that I'm following in the footsteps of #131597. |
That was a quick-and-dirty "fix", lol |
klensy
reviewed
Dec 31, 2024
Ordinary code is much easier to work with than macro-generated code.
All of the tools that use this macro are currently in-tree, so support for specifying a `SourceType` was not meaningfully used. It can potentially be re-added in the future if needed.
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
tool-check-step
branch
from
330d54c to
90d0ce7
Compare
|
Removed the stamp-name changes for being too risky for this PR (diff). |
jieyouxu
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
klensy
reviewed
Dec 31, 2024
jieyouxu
approved these changes
Dec 31, 2024
This tricks rustfmt into formatting the macro arguments as expressions, instead of giving up and ignoring them.
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
tool-check-step
branch
from
90d0ce7 to
66fd534
Compare
|
@bors r=jieyouxu |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2025
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#131439 (Remove allowing static_mut_refs lint) - rust-lang#133292 (E0277: suggest dereferencing function arguments in more cases) - rust-lang#134877 (add suggestion for wrongly ordered format parameters) - rust-lang#134945 (Some small nits to the borrowck suggestions for mutating a map through index) - rust-lang#134950 (bootstrap: Overhaul and simplify the `tool_check_step!` macro) - rust-lang#134979 (Provide structured suggestion for `impl Default` of type where all fields have defaults) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134950 - Zalathar:tool-check-step, r=jieyouxu bootstrap: Overhaul and simplify the `tool_check_step!` macro Main changes: - Pull most of `run` out of the macro and into a regular helper function - Reduce the number of redundant/unnecessary macro arguments - Switch to struct-like syntax so that optional arguments are clearer, and so that rustfmt is happy ~~The one “functional” change is that the `-check.stamp` files now get their name from the final path segment, instead of the struct name; in practice this means that they now contain more hyphens in some cases. As far as I'm aware, the exact filename doesn't matter so this should be fine.~~ (that change has been removed from this PR)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2025
bootstrap: Overhaul and simplify the `tool_extended!` macro Similar to rust-lang#134950, but for the macro that declares build steps for some tools. The main changes are: - Removing some functionality that isn't needed by any of the tools currently using the macro - Moving some code out of the macro and into ordinary helper functions - Switching to one macro invocation per tool, and struct-like syntax so that rustfmt will format them There should be no functional change.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 2, 2025
bootstrap: Overhaul and simplify the `tool_extended!` macro Similar to rust-lang#134950, but for the macro that declares build steps for some tools. The main changes are: - Removing some functionality that isn't needed by any of the tools currently using the macro - Moving some code out of the macro and into ordinary helper functions - Switching to one macro invocation per tool, and struct-like syntax so that rustfmt will format them There should be no functional change.
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.
Main changes:
runout of the macro and into a regular helper functionThe one “functional” change is that the(that change has been removed from this PR)-check.stampfiles now get their name from the final path segment, instead of the struct name; in practice this means that they now contain more hyphens in some cases. As far as I'm aware, the exact filename doesn't matter so this should be fine.