Skip to content

Conversation

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

@Kobzol Kobzol commented Dec 31, 2025

@rustbot rustbot added A-CI Area: Our Github Actions CI A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. 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. labels Dec 31, 2025
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Dec 31, 2025

@bors try

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 31, 2025
Rename the gcc component to ci-gcc

try-job: dist-x86_64-linux
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Dec 31, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: bd01ad8 (bd01ad8bfec1955aff2c8d3397b56de43fcf6046, parent: 629b092f8fab1b0370dfb749c4f5e00e70169dd2)

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Jan 2, 2026

perhaps it should be gcc-dev by analogy with rustc-dev?

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Jan 2, 2026

The "analogical" LLVM component is actually rust-dev, not rustc-dev (which shows how beautifully named are our components) 😆 But yeah, gcc-dev doesn't sound bad.

@Kobzol Kobzol changed the title Rename the gcc component to ci-gcc Rename the gcc component to gcc-dev Jan 2, 2026
Kobzol added 3 commits January 2, 2026 10:18
To free up the `gcc` name for the actual libgccjit component that we will ship to rustup, and also make it more explicit that this component is internal and for bootstrap usages only.
Because we renamed the CI component. We will have to re-enable it in a follow-up PR.
The `CiGcc` step is not enabled by defaut, so it does not have to be skipped.
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Jan 2, 2026

Renamed it to gcc-dev instead.

@Kobzol Kobzol marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2026 09:18
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 2, 2026

Some changes occurred in src/tools/opt-dist

cc @Kobzol

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jan 2, 2026
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 2, 2026

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
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

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Jan 2, 2026

@bors try

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2026
Rename the gcc component to gcc-dev

try-job: dist-x86_64-linux
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Jan 2, 2026

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: a810c3a (a810c3a27ff7df7407db7a9414c17ee1b9c5b7bb, parent: 1b4325211c3228dd10eea12e9b3f749f87363d95)

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Jan 2, 2026

it would be funny to rename rust-dev to llvm-dev and rustc-dev to rustc-private, lol. download-ci-rustc doesn't have a dedicated component i don't think, it just reuses rustc-private.

Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Jan 5, 2026

@bors r+ rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 5, 2026

📌 Commit 2a893bd has been approved by jieyouxu

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 Jan 5, 2026
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 5, 2026

⌛ Testing commit 2a893bd with merge 0d162b2...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 5, 2026

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 0d162b2 to main...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 5, 2026
@bors bors merged commit 0d162b2 into rust-lang:main Jan 5, 2026
13 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Jan 5, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 5, 2026

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 6885bdf (parent) -> 0d162b2 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 2 test diffs

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

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 0d162b25edd5bf0dba9a22e83b614f1113e90474 --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. dist-aarch64-apple: 6082.5s -> 8035.1s (+32.1%)
  2. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3025.6s -> 3887.6s (+28.5%)
  3. x86_64-gnu-llvm-20: 4425.2s -> 5348.3s (+20.9%)
  4. aarch64-apple: 10730.9s -> 8759.0s (-18.4%)
  5. dist-apple-various: 4706.5s -> 3926.8s (-16.6%)
  6. tidy: 172.5s -> 152.1s (-11.8%)
  7. arm-android: 6012.8s -> 5458.9s (-9.2%)
  8. x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3: 6834.2s -> 6234.9s (-8.8%)
  9. x86_64-gnu-miri: 4265.9s -> 4620.8s (+8.3%)
  10. dist-x86_64-netbsd: 4937.8s -> 5279.1s (+6.9%)
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 (0d162b2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

  • If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
    please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
    @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
  • If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
    a new PR with a fix for the regression.
  • If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
    you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
    were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.6% [0.5%, 0.6%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.1% [-0.2%, -0.1%] 9
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.8%, secondary 2.6%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.6% [2.6%, 2.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 2.8% [2.8%, 2.8%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.4%)

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.4% [-3.4%, -3.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.0%, secondary 0.1%)

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

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 11
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.1% [0.0%, 0.1%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 11

Bootstrap: 473.743s -> 474.733s (0.21%)
Artifact size: 390.82 MiB -> 390.86 MiB (0.01%)

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jan 5, 2026
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Jan 5, 2026

Noise, this only renamed a CI component.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

1 similar comment
@Kobzol
Copy link
Member Author

Kobzol commented Jan 5, 2026

Noise, this only renamed a CI component.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Jan 5, 2026
@Kobzol Kobzol deleted the rename-ci-gcc branch January 6, 2026 08:24
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-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. 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.

7 participants