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

regression?: llvm version error #82671

Closed
Mark-Simulacrum opened this issue Mar 1, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

regression?: llvm version error #82671

Mark-Simulacrum opened this issue Mar 1, 2021 · 6 comments
Labels
E-needs-mcve Call for participation: This issue has a repro, but needs a Minimal Complete and Verifiable Example regression-from-stable-to-beta Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Milestone

Comments

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. regression-from-stable-to-beta Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta. E-needs-mcve Call for participation: This issue has a repro, but needs a Minimal Complete and Verifiable Example labels Mar 1, 2021
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added this to the 1.51.0 milestone Mar 1, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added the I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. label Mar 1, 2021
@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Mar 1, 2021

This looks like https://docs.rs/rustc_version/0.3.2/rustc_version/enum.Error.html#variant.LlvmVersionError (note that the crate has a dependency on rustc_version 0.3.2). It was fixed in 0.3.3, so I think this can be closed: djc/rustc-version-rs@v0.3.2...v0.3.3.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Mar 1, 2021

potentially related

[INFO] [stderr] thread 'rustc' panicked at 'called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: FromUtf8Error { bytes: [128, 0, 2, 8, 0, 12, 5, 4], error: Utf8Error { valid_up_to: 0, error_len: Some(1) } }', compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/metadata.rs:75:22

This looks like a different issue.

@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

apiraino commented Mar 3, 2021

removing the prioritize label @rustbot label -I-prioritize

@rustbot rustbot removed the I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. label Mar 3, 2021
@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

apiraino commented Mar 3, 2021

Seems that the master branch of this crate compiles on stable, beta and nightly, I guess the crate used in the crater run is not updated to the latest version (or there's no more recent release of xmpp-rs).

Therefore I would close this issue, what do you think @Mark-Simulacrum ?

Perhaps worth mentioning that xmpp-rs fails to compile on nightly+beta (on stable is fine) for another reason, a linting warning on another dependency (xml5ever):

Compiling xml5ever v0.16.1
   Compiling xml5ever v0.16.1
error: field is never read: `ns`
   --> tokio-xmpp/src/xmpp_codec.rs:183:5
    |
183 |     ns: Option<String>,
    |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    |
note: the lint level is defined here
   --> tokio-xmpp/src/lib.rs:3:22
    |
3   | #![deny(unsafe_code, unused, missing_docs, bare_trait_objects)]
    |                      ^^^^^^
    = note: `#[deny(dead_code)]` implied by `#[deny(unused)]`

error: aborting due to previous error

error: could not compile `tokio-xmpp`

worth opening an issue?

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented Mar 3, 2021

Perhaps worth mentioning that xmpp-rs fails to compile on nightly+beta (on stable is fine) for another reason, a linting warning on another dependency (xml4ever):

Is crater running without --cap-lints warn? That seems bad. Anyway, I don't think making lints more accurate should ever be considered a breaking change, the author opted-in to the breakage with deny(unused).

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member Author

crater usually caps lints at forbid, as we want to know if we've added regressions in lints too. This seems reasonable to me. (I might even want --force-lints = deny or something).

But yes it sounds like this is not a rust regression at least.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
E-needs-mcve Call for participation: This issue has a repro, but needs a Minimal Complete and Verifiable Example regression-from-stable-to-beta Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants