Skip to content

Conversation

Enselic
Copy link
Member

@Enselic Enselic commented Sep 10, 2025

Simply to increase the scope of the testing.

Part of #61117.

cc #145967 and #146025 which prepared for this. And #144499 that set to level to 1

try-job: x86_64-gnu-debug

@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-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 10, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 10, 2025

r? @jdno

rustbot has assigned @jdno.
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

@Enselic Enselic added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 10, 2025
@Enselic
Copy link
Member Author

Enselic commented Sep 10, 2025

Can someone do @bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-debug please? Thanks!

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@bors try jobs=x86_64-gnu-debug

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2025
ci: Increase `rust.debuginfo-level-tests` to `2` in **x86_64-gnu-debug**

try-job: x86_64-gnu-debug
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

@bors2 delegate=try

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 10, 2025

✌️ @Enselic, you can now perform try builds on this pull request!

You can now post @bors2 try to start a try build.

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ ENV RUST_CONFIGURE_ARGS \
--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu \
--enable-debug \
--enable-lld \
--set rust.debuginfo-level-tests=1 \
--set rust.debuginfo-level-tests=2 \
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Remark: (not against this change) I seem to recall that there are meaningful differences between debuginfo level 1 and 2 (in that some bugs are present only at specific debuginfo levels)...

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 agree that testing both level 1 and level 2 give the most test coverage, but I also suspect that only level 2 will be sufficient in practice.

If we end up getting a lot of debuginfo level 1-specific problems I think we should look into testing both levels in CI.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, let's see if there are a few specific-to-1 problems.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 10, 2025

💔 Test for 3e9ca87 failed: CI. Failed jobs:

@Enselic Enselic force-pushed the debuginfo-level-tests-2 branch from a5939da to e910daf Compare September 11, 2025 04:48
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

…` job

Simply to increase the scope of the testing.

Force debuginfo=0 for a handful of tests so that we can have CI prevent
regressing on more tests.
@Enselic Enselic force-pushed the debuginfo-level-tests-2 branch from e910daf to c7c2fdd Compare September 12, 2025 03:41
@Enselic Enselic changed the title ci: Increase rust.debuginfo-level-tests to 2 in **x86_64-gnu-debug** ci: Increase rust.debuginfo-level-tests to 2 in x86_64-gnu-debug job Sep 12, 2025
@Enselic
Copy link
Member Author

Enselic commented Sep 12, 2025

@bors2 try jobs=x86_64-gnu-debug

@rust-bors

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2025
ci: Increase `rust.debuginfo-level-tests` to `2` in `x86_64-gnu-debug` job

try-job: x86_64-gnu-debug
@rust-bors
Copy link

rust-bors bot commented Sep 12, 2025

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 24a1922 (24a192280bd0ace9405960dd26389255398eaf0b, parent: 2a9bacf6187685931d52346a0ecff2e52bdc91cc)

@Enselic
Copy link
Member Author

Enselic commented Sep 12, 2025

Try job passed so this is ready for review. I added FIXME to four tests. If we wait with increasing debuginfo level in CI, new tests will probably introduces more failures and existing tests will regress, so I think it makes sense to add FIXMEs.

@rustbot ready

@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 Sep 12, 2025
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.

Thanks, leaving FIXMEs seem fine.

View changes since this review

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

r? jieyouxu @bors r+ rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 13, 2025

📌 Commit c7c2fdd has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@rustbot rustbot assigned jieyouxu and unassigned jdno Sep 13, 2025
@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 Sep 13, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 13, 2025

⌛ Testing commit c7c2fdd with merge 064cc81...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 13, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 064cc81 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 13, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 064cc81 into rust-lang:master Sep 13, 2025
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.91.0 milestone Sep 13, 2025
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 9642c0e (parent) -> 064cc81 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 064cc81354a940e297a1be4dfa9e26759c8431be --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-linux: 6397.7s -> 9202.6s (43.8%)
  2. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19: 2792.5s -> 2392.4s (-14.3%)
  3. dist-apple-various: 3632.1s -> 4037.0s (11.1%)
  4. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4317.7s -> 3857.2s (-10.7%)
  5. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-3: 6975.5s -> 6240.6s (-10.5%)
  6. i686-gnu-2: 6067.7s -> 5441.8s (-10.3%)
  7. aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 2397.1s -> 2153.2s (-10.2%)
  8. dist-aarch64-apple: 5937.7s -> 6523.3s (9.9%)
  9. pr-check-1: 1559.1s -> 1414.9s (-9.3%)
  10. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 7907.9s -> 7187.8s (-9.1%)
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 (064cc81): 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 (secondary 2.5%)

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

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.8%)

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)
2.8% [2.0%, 3.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 467.368s -> 468.794s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 388.09 MiB -> 388.08 MiB (-0.00%)

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. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. 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.

8 participants