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

unix time module now return result #114038

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2024
Merged

unix time module now return result #114038

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2024

Conversation

Stargateur
Copy link
Contributor

@Stargateur Stargateur commented Jul 24, 2023

First try to fix #108277 without break anything.

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but ./x check --all-targets doesn't seem to use them.

TODO:

  • better error
  • test, how ?

@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2023

r? @thomcc

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 24, 2023
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@Stargateur Stargateur marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2023 03:43
@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Jul 29, 2023

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but ./x check --all-targets doesn't seem to use them.

I don't think --all-targets is right, I think you need to check each --target individually? Note that it does need to be check, and you may need to ensure the llvm submodule is not checked out (this may have been fixed).

@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 22, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 21, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #115230) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@rustbot rustbot added the O-unix Operating system: Unix-like label Sep 22, 2023
@Stargateur
Copy link
Contributor Author

Stargateur commented Sep 22, 2023

I got no idea how to remove git submodule change from a commit, I don't even know why it's added git submodule change when I didn't commit any submodule change... I hate git submodules so hard.

After one hour finally remove somehow the git submodules change.

@Stargateur Stargateur force-pushed the 108277 branch 2 times, most recently from 49b8bfe to 1eb1559 Compare September 22, 2023 02:33
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 24, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #116238) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@thomcc
Copy link
Member

thomcc commented Feb 1, 2024

I'm going to be away for a few months, so I'm rerolling my PRs so that folks don't have to wait for me. Sorry/thanks.

r? libs

@rustbot rustbot assigned m-ou-se and unassigned thomcc Feb 1, 2024
@Dylan-DPC Dylan-DPC added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Feb 12, 2024
@m-ou-se m-ou-se added S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 15, 2024
@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton assigned ChrisDenton and unassigned m-ou-se Feb 21, 2024
@ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member

Hi @Stargateur, could you rebase this PR please?

@ChrisDenton ChrisDenton added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-team Status: Awaiting decision from the relevant subteam (see the T-<team> label). labels Feb 25, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Mar 6, 2024
@ChrisDenton
Copy link
Member

ChrisDenton commented Mar 14, 2024

looks good to me, thanks!

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

📌 Commit 408c0ea has been approved by ChrisDenton

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 14, 2024
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
unix time module now return result

First try to fix rust-lang#108277 without break anything.

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but `./x check --all-targets` doesn't seem to use them.

TODO:

- [x] better error
- [ ] test, how ?

`@rustbot` label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 11 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#104353 (Add CStr::bytes iterator)
 - rust-lang#114038 (unix time module now return result)
 - rust-lang#119676 (rustdoc-search: search types by higher-order functions)
 - rust-lang#120699 (Document `TRACK_DIAGNOSTIC` calls.)
 - rust-lang#121899 (Document how removing a type's field can be bad and what to do instead)
 - rust-lang#121940 (Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`)
 - rust-lang#122397 (Various cleanups around the const eval query providers)
 - rust-lang#122405 (Add methods to create StableMIR constant)
 - rust-lang#122416 (Various style improvements to `rustc_lint::levels`)
 - rust-lang#122440 (const-eval: organize and extend tests for required-consts)
 - rust-lang#122461 (fix unsoundness in Step::forward_unchecked for signed integers)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
unix time module now return result

First try to fix rust-lang#108277 without break anything.

if anyone who read this know tips to be able to check compilation for different target I could use some help. So far I installed many target with rustup but `./x check --all-targets` doesn't seem to use them.

TODO:

- [x] better error
- [ ] test, how ?

``@rustbot`` label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 408c0ea with merge e69f14b...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 14, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: ChrisDenton
Pushing e69f14b to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 14, 2024
@bors bors merged commit e69f14b into rust-lang:master Mar 14, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 14, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (e69f14b): 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)
2.9% [2.9%, 2.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.5% [-6.0%, -2.1%] 3
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -1.9% [-6.0%, 2.9%] 4

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)
3.6% [2.5%, 4.4%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 669.949s -> 669.429s (-0.08%)
Artifact size: 310.79 MiB -> 310.79 MiB (-0.00%)

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. O-unix Operating system: Unix-like S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

std::fs::Metadata timestamp methods will panic on files with invalid timestamp nsec values
10 participants