-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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
ci: test cargo on aarch64-gnu
#123828
ci: test cargo on aarch64-gnu
#123828
Conversation
rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum. Use |
91d035e
to
814c196
Compare
Dropped cargotest, as suggested on zulip. |
@bors r+ rollup=iffy |
…mulacrum ci: test cargo on `aarch64-gnu` Since `aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu` is a tier-1 target, we should also test cargo on it, especially since cargo's own CI doesn't cover this yet. This might have helped us discover rust-lang#123733 sooner, which is not a cargo problem but was uncovered by a new cargo test (which we'll have to skip for now). Everything else passes in my local run, so at least we'll have a guard against future regressions.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
Co-authored-by: Eric Huss <eric@huss.org>
@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (1d8f4a6): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis 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.
CyclesResultsThis 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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 675.963s -> 677.574s (0.24%) |
Since
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
is a tier-1 target, we should also test cargo on it, especially since cargo's own CI doesn't cover this yet. This might have helped us discover #123733 sooner, which is not a cargo problem but was uncovered by a new cargo test (which we'll have to skip for now). Everything else passes in my local run, so at least we'll have a guard against future regressions.