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 metadata to targets #122305

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 11, 2024
Merged

Add metadata to targets #122305

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 11, 2024

Conversation

Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

@Noratrieb Noratrieb commented Mar 10, 2024

follow up to #121905 and #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

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.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 10, 2024

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

@rustbot 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 10, 2024
@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member Author

@bors p=1

@davidtwco
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

📌 Commit 5bcb66c has been approved by davidtwco

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 Mar 11, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 5bcb66c with merge d255c6a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 11, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing d255c6a to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 11, 2024
@bors bors merged commit d255c6a into rust-lang:master Mar 11, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 11, 2024
@Noratrieb Noratrieb deleted the target-tiers branch March 11, 2024 14:56
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (d255c6a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.6% [0.6%, 0.6%] 1

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)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.8% [-3.8%, -3.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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)
4.7% [3.6%, 6.2%] 5
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.8% [-0.8%, -0.8%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 647.279s -> 647.596s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 310.00 MiB -> 310.01 MiB (0.01%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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-compiler Relevant to the compiler 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