Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add glibcxx_assertion check #3138

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 29, 2024
Merged

Conversation

badumbatish
Copy link
Contributor

ChangeLog:

* .github/workflows/ccpp.yml: Add glibcxx_assertion check

@badumbatish badumbatish force-pushed the glibcxx_ci branch 2 times, most recently from 90e23b4 to 2f4d12d Compare August 23, 2024 06:57
@badumbatish
Copy link
Contributor Author

will try again tmr

@badumbatish
Copy link
Contributor Author

fixed by adding a boolean check of binder.empty()

ChangeLog:

	* .github/workflows/ccpp.yml:
	Add glibcxx_assertion check

	* .github/glibcxx_ubuntu64b_log_expected_warnings: New file.
gcc/rust/ChangeLog:

	* typecheck/rust-hir-type-check.h:
	Add pop guard for binder
Copy link
Member

@CohenArthur CohenArthur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks!

Comment on lines +148 to +155
cd gccrs-build
< log grep 'warning: ' | sort > log_warnings
if diff -U0 ../.github/glibcxx_ubuntu64b_log_expected_warnings log_warnings; then
:
else
echo 'See <https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/pull/1026>.'
exit 1
fi >&2
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so do we need a different expected warnings file? are there more warnings when GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS is defined?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the default ubuntu 64 bit has a few more warnings than when we run it with GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS, thus triggering failure when CI is run. Should we use a different diff at line 150?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no worries, that's completely fine - I wasn't aware that using the define would result in more warnings, and I thought the two files would end up the same, but if that's not the case then this one is needed

@CohenArthur CohenArthur added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 29, 2024
Merged via the queue into Rust-GCC:master with commit 5b5aadb Aug 29, 2024
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants