Skip to content

Conversation

Gelbpunkt
Copy link
Contributor

Almost all of the musl dist jobs use crosstool-ng, only the aarch64 and x86_64 jobs use musl-cross-make. Let's start transitioning the remaining jobs over to crosstool-ng and start dropping musl-cross-make.

I noticed that this job is called dist-arm-linux-musl, but the GNU pendant is called dist-aarch64-linux. How would I go about renaming dist-arm-linux-musl to dist-aarch64-linux-musl? Is there any external effort required or can I just rename it in the repo?

try-job: dist-arm-linux-musl

Almost all of the musl dist jobs use crosstool-ng, only the aarch64 and
x86_64 jobs use musl-cross-make. Let's start transitioning the remaining
jobs over to crosstool-ng and start dropping musl-cross-make.

Signed-off-by: Jens Reidel <adrian@travitia.xyz>
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 11, 2025

r? @marcoieni

rustbot has assigned @marcoieni.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 11, 2025
@marcoieni
Copy link
Member

marcoieni commented Jul 11, 2025

I think you can just rename it (together with the corresponding docker image). You can do it in another PR, too.

FYI rust-lang/infra-team#190

I'm reviewing the PR 👀

CT_ARCH_ARCH="armv6"
CT_ARCH_FLOAT_SW=y
CT_ARCH_64=y
# CT_DEMULTILIB is not set
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we explain why this is not set? 🤔

@marcoieni
Copy link
Member

@bors try

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2025
Use crosstool-ng for dist-arm-linux-musl

Almost all of the musl dist jobs use crosstool-ng, only the aarch64 and x86_64 jobs use musl-cross-make. Let's start transitioning the remaining jobs over to crosstool-ng and start dropping musl-cross-make.

I noticed that this job is called `dist-arm-linux-musl`, but the GNU pendant is called `dist-aarch64-linux`. How would I go about renaming `dist-arm-linux-musl` to `dist-aarch64-linux-musl`? Is there any external effort required or can I just rename it in the repo?

try-job: dist-arm-linux-musl
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 11, 2025

⌛ Trying commit a4813e0 with merge 3a16f98...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jul 11, 2025

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 3a16f98 (3a16f9895e7524cede8ae9b28d03a2563348525d)

@marcoieni
Copy link
Member

I downloaded the try build artifacts and compared them with the auto build artifacts from the last commit on master.

rustc-nightly-aarch64-unknown-linux-musl/rustc/bin/rustc is 71KB here, while in the latest autobuild is 11KB.

Is this size increase expected?

@Gelbpunkt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gelbpunkt commented Jul 11, 2025

Seems a bit weird. I downloaded them and at first glance, only the rustc binary is a tiny bit larger indeed.

autobuild:

ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-musl-aarch64.so.1, with debug_info, not stripped

try-build:

ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-musl-aarch64.so.1, not stripped

llvm-readelf also confirms that the debuginfo sections are missing in the new one. Not sure why that'd increase the binary size though, I'll investigate a bit more.

I have a feeling that this is related to the changed CFLAGS.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-infra Relevant to the infrastructure team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants