Add a `description` field to target definitions #121905

Noratrieb · 2024-03-02T16:16:25Z

This is the short description (64-bit MinGW (Windows 7+)) including the platform requirements.

The reason for doing it like this is that this PR will be quite prone to conflicts whenever targets get added, so it should be as simple as possible to get it merged. Future PRs which migrate targets are scoped to groups of targets, so they will not conflict as they can just touch these.

This moves some of the information from the rustc book into the compiler.
It cannot be queried yet, that is future work. It is also future work to fill out all the descriptions, which will coincide with the work of moving over existing target docs to the new format.

r? @davidtwco but anyone is also free to steal it

rustbot · 2024-03-02T16:16:34Z

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

bors · 2024-03-03T14:51:30Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #121903) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

davidtwco

LGTM, r=me after rebase if you're happy

Are there other things we want to add here? Like which tier a target is, or a yes/no for host toolchain support or std support? These are things that are always specific to each target, so it avoids having to have a file just for this metadata in your other PR with the documentation. Though they do feel like a strange thing to have here, maybe together in a metadata field.

This is the short description (`64-bit MinGW (Windows 7+)`) including the platform requirements. The reason for doing it like this is that this PR will be quite prone to conflicts whenever targets get added, so it should be as simple as possible to get it merged. Future PRs which migrate targets are scoped to groups of targets, so they will not conflict as they can just touch these. This moves some of the information from the rustc book into the compiler. It cannot be queried yet, that is future work. It is also future work to fill out all the descriptions, which will coincide with the work of moving over existing target docs to the new format.

Noratrieb · 2024-03-05T15:56:41Z

@bors r=davidtwco

bors · 2024-03-05T15:56:43Z

📌 Commit 1db67fb has been approved by davidtwco

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Noratrieb · 2024-03-05T15:57:17Z

@bors p=1

…idtwco Add a `description` field to target definitions Starts addressing rust-lang#121051 (review) This is the short description (`64-bit MinGW (Windows 7+)`) including the platform requirements. The reason for doing it like this is that this PR will be quite prone to conflicts whenever targets get added, so it should be as simple as possible to get it merged. Future PRs which migrate targets are scoped to groups of targets, so they will not conflict as they can just touch these. This moves some of the information from the rustc book into the compiler. It cannot be queried yet, that is future work. It is also future work to fill out all the descriptions, which will coincide with the work of moving over existing target docs to the new format. r? `@davidtwco` but anyone is also free to steal it

…idtwco Add a `description` field to target definitions Starts addressing rust-lang#121051 (review) This is the short description (`64-bit MinGW (Windows 7+)`) including the platform requirements. The reason for doing it like this is that this PR will be quite prone to conflicts whenever targets get added, so it should be as simple as possible to get it merged. Future PRs which migrate targets are scoped to groups of targets, so they will not conflict as they can just touch these. This moves some of the information from the rustc book into the compiler. It cannot be queried yet, that is future work. It is also future work to fill out all the descriptions, which will coincide with the work of moving over existing target docs to the new format. r? ``@davidtwco`` but anyone is also free to steal it

…idtwco Add a `description` field to target definitions Starts addressing rust-lang#121051 (review) This is the short description (`64-bit MinGW (Windows 7+)`) including the platform requirements. The reason for doing it like this is that this PR will be quite prone to conflicts whenever targets get added, so it should be as simple as possible to get it merged. Future PRs which migrate targets are scoped to groups of targets, so they will not conflict as they can just touch these. This moves some of the information from the rustc book into the compiler. It cannot be queried yet, that is future work. It is also future work to fill out all the descriptions, which will coincide with the work of moving over existing target docs to the new format. r? ```@davidtwco``` but anyone is also free to steal it

…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#121065 (Add basic i18n guidance for `Display`) - rust-lang#121301 (errors: share `SilentEmitter` between rustc and rustfmt) - rust-lang#121744 (Stop using Bubble in coherence and instead emulate it with an intercrate check) - rust-lang#121829 (Dummy tweaks (attempt 2)) - rust-lang#121857 (Implement async closure signature deduction) - rust-lang#121894 (const_eval_select: make it safe but be careful with what we expose on stable for now) - rust-lang#121905 (Add a `description` field to target definitions) - rust-lang#122022 (loongarch: add frecipe and relax target feature) - rust-lang#122028 (Remove some dead code) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

bors · 2024-03-05T18:44:40Z

⌛ Testing commit 1db67fb with merge 3c02972...

bors · 2024-03-05T20:59:03Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing 3c02972 to master...

rust-timer · 2024-03-06T00:07:54Z

Finished benchmarking commit (3c02972): 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

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.9%	[-2.3%, -1.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 644.518s -> 644.259s (-0.04%)
Artifact size: 175.01 MiB -> 175.02 MiB (0.00%)

dpaoliello · 2024-03-07T01:50:18Z

FYI, description was added to from_json but not to_json, so check_consistency is failing if you try to set a description for a target: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/8180997936/job/22370052535#step:27:4967

Noratrieb · 2024-03-07T05:47:56Z

lol, oops. Happy to take a PR adding it, or I will do it in the future

dpaoliello · 2024-03-07T22:12:15Z

check_consistency is failing if you try to set a description for a target: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/8180997936/job/22370052535#step:27:4967

Done: #122157

Add the new description field to Target::to_json, and add descriptions for some MSVC targets The original PR to add a `description` field to `Target` (<rust-lang#121905>) didn't add the field to `Target::to_json`, which meant that the `check_consistency` testwould fail if you tried to set a description as it wouldn't survive round-tripping via JSON: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/8180997936/job/22370052535#step:27:4967 This change adds the field to `Target::to_json`, and sets some descriptions to verify that it works correctly.

Rollup merge of rust-lang#122157 - dpaoliello:targetdesc, r=Nilstrieb Add the new description field to Target::to_json, and add descriptions for some MSVC targets The original PR to add a `description` field to `Target` (<rust-lang#121905>) didn't add the field to `Target::to_json`, which meant that the `check_consistency` testwould fail if you tried to set a description as it wouldn't survive round-tripping via JSON: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/8180997936/job/22370052535#step:27:4967 This change adds the field to `Target::to_json`, and sets some descriptions to verify that it works correctly.

Add the new description field to Target::to_json, and add descriptions for some MSVC targets The original PR to add a `description` field to `Target` (<rust-lang/rust#121905>) didn't add the field to `Target::to_json`, which meant that the `check_consistency` testwould fail if you tried to set a description as it wouldn't survive round-tripping via JSON: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/8180997936/job/22370052535#step:27:4967 This change adds the field to `Target::to_json`, and sets some descriptions to verify that it works correctly.

Add metadata to targets follow up to rust-lang#121905 and rust-lang#122157 This adds four pieces of metadata to every target: - description - tier - host tools - std This information is currently scattered across target docs and both - not machine readable, making validation harder - sometimes subtly encoding by the table it's in, causing mistakes and making it harder to review changes to the properties By putting it in the compiler, we improve this. Later, we will use this canonical information to generate target documentation from it. I used find-replace for all the `description: None`. One thing I'm not sure about is the behavior for the JSON. It doesn't really make sense that custom targets supply this information, especially the tier. But for the roundtrip tests, we do need to print and parse it. Maybe emit a warning when a custom target provides the metadata key? Either way, I don't think that's important right now, this PR should get merged ASAP or it will conflict all over the place. r? davidtwco

rustbot assigned davidtwco Mar 2, 2024

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 2, 2024

Noratrieb mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2024

Tracking Issue for changing rustc target docs #120745

Open

9 tasks

davidtwco approved these changes Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

WaffleLapkin force-pushed the add-empty-targets branch from 5ac7607 to 1db67fb Compare March 5, 2024 15:42

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 Mar 5, 2024

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2024

Rollup of 10 pull requests #122030

Closed

matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2024

Rollup of 9 pull requests #122032

Closed

This was referenced Mar 5, 2024

Rollup of 9 pull requests #122033

Closed

Add new Tier-3 target: loongarch64-unknown-linux-musl #121832

Merged

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 5, 2024

bors merged commit 3c02972 into rust-lang:master Mar 5, 2024
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 5, 2024

Noratrieb deleted the add-empty-targets branch March 7, 2024 05:47

dpaoliello mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2024

Add the new description field to Target::to_json, and add descriptions for some MSVC targets #122157

Merged

Noratrieb mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2024

Add metadata to targets #122305

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add a `description` field to target definitions #121905

Add a `description` field to target definitions #121905

Noratrieb commented Mar 2, 2024

rustbot commented Mar 2, 2024

bors commented Mar 3, 2024

davidtwco left a comment

Noratrieb commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

Noratrieb commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

rust-timer commented Mar 6, 2024

dpaoliello commented Mar 7, 2024

Noratrieb commented Mar 7, 2024

dpaoliello commented Mar 7, 2024

Add a description field to target definitions #121905

Add a description field to target definitions #121905

Conversation

Noratrieb commented Mar 2, 2024

rustbot commented Mar 2, 2024

bors commented Mar 3, 2024

davidtwco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Noratrieb commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

Noratrieb commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

rust-timer commented Mar 6, 2024

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Instruction count

Max RSS (memory usage)

Cycles

Binary size

dpaoliello commented Mar 7, 2024

Noratrieb commented Mar 7, 2024

dpaoliello commented Mar 7, 2024

Add a `description` field to target definitions #121905

Add a `description` field to target definitions #121905