1.70.0 crater runs

Note: Please do not conduct triage on these runs without discussing how to do so with a release team member first. Thanks!

@craterbot

@craterbot run name=beta-1.70-1 start=1.69.0 end=beta-2023-04-20 mode=build-and-test cap-lints=warn p=1

👌 Experiment beta-1.70-1 created and queued.
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot

@craterbot run name=beta-1.70-rustdoc-1 start=1.69.0 end=beta-2023-04-20 mode=rustdoc cap-lints=warn p=1

👌 Experiment beta-1.70-rustdoc-1 created and queued.
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

🚧 Experiment beta-1.70-1 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

🚧 Experiment beta-1.70-rustdoc-1 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

🎉 Experiment beta-1.70-1 is completed!
📊 381 regressed and 99 fixed (262960 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the blacklist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

🎉 Experiment beta-1.70-rustdoc-1 is completed!
📊 153 regressed and 30 fixed (262960 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the blacklist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

The only ICE regressions are (already beta-nominated) #111015
I see 86 regressions due to #98112 which is about the number I expected, based on running Miri on the ecosystem.
I reported the 2 crates that SIGSEGV: rust-lang/crater#695

A lot of the rest of the regressions just look like flaky tests to me. I presume this is usually when someone does a re-run of the regressed crates list.

There are also 133 crates that fail due to "No space left on device" which seems bad but I think I've seen that before in crater quite a bit 🤷

🚨 Error: failed to parse the command

🆘 If you have any trouble with Crater please ping @rust-lang/infra!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot

@craterbot abort

🗑️ Experiment beta-1.70-3 deleted!

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

@craterbot

@craterbot run name=beta-170-4 start=master#9610dfe5a9a731ced1ea4923ecbd0c57fe367898 end=master#e6e4f7ed1589e03bc2f6c5931c1a72e7947e8682 mode=check-only p=1

👌 Experiment beta-170-4 created and queued.
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

🚧 Experiment beta-170-4 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

🎉 Experiment beta-170-4 is completed!
📊 29 regressed and 3 fixed (286450 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the blacklist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

FWIW in case that's of interest to somebody: the guard crate (which implemented let else for MSRV predating official support) doesn't build anymore in 1.70 due to the removal of box_syntax but the failure is strange. I can't find it listed in the crater report (it's not blacklisted either) but I don't know whether that's by design.

It uses the box syntax in a single test gated behind a non-default "nightly" feature:

    #[cfg(feature = "nightly")]
    #[test]
    fn nightly() {
        // box patterns
        let foo = (box 42, [1, 2, 3]);
        guard!({ return } unless Some(foo) => Some((box x, _)));
        println!("{}", x);

        let mut foo = Some((box 42, [1, 2, 3]));
        {
            guard!({ return } unless foo => Some((box ref x, _)));
            println!("{}", x);
        }
        {
            guard!({ return } unless foo => Some((box ref mut x, _)));
            println!("{}", x);
        }
        {
            guard!({ return } unless foo => Some((box mut x, _)));
            x -= 1;
            println!("{}", x);
        }

        // slice patterns
        let foo = (box 42, [1, 2, 3]);
        guard!({ return } unless Some(foo) => Some((_, [a, b, c])));
        println!("{} {} {}", a, b, c);

        // advanced slice patterns
        let foo = (box 42, [1, 2, 3]);
        guard!({ return } unless Some((foo.0, &foo.1)) => Some((box x, &[head, tail @ ..])));
        println!("{} {} {:?}", x, head, tail);
    }

So I would not expect a cargo build to trigger this issue, and yet:

❯ rustc --version 
rustc 1.70.0 (90c541806 2023-05-31)
❯ git clone https://github.com/durka/guard/
Cloning into 'guard'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 267, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (16/16), done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (12/12), done.
remote: Total 267 (delta 4), reused 11 (delta 3), pack-reused 251
Receiving objects: 100% (267/267), 45.03 KiB | 1.96 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (141/141), done.
❯ cd guard
❯ cargo b
   Compiling guard v0.5.1 (~/guard)
error: `box_syntax` has been removed
   --> src/lib.rs:426:20
    |
426 |         let foo = (box 42, [1, 2, 3]);
    |                    ^^^^^^
    |
help: use `Box::new()` instead
    |
426 |         let foo = (Box::new(42), [1, 2, 3]);
    |                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

error: `box_syntax` has been removed
   --> src/lib.rs:430:29
    |
430 |         let mut foo = Some((box 42, [1, 2, 3]));
    |                             ^^^^^^
    |
help: use `Box::new()` instead
    |
430 |         let mut foo = Some((Box::new(42), [1, 2, 3]));
    |                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~

error: `box_syntax` has been removed
   --> src/lib.rs:446:20
    |
446 |         let foo = (box 42, [1, 2, 3]);
    |                    ^^^^^^
    |
help: use `Box::new()` instead
    |
446 |         let foo = (Box::new(42), [1, 2, 3]);
    |                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

error: `box_syntax` has been removed
   --> src/lib.rs:451:20
    |
451 |         let foo = (box 42, [1, 2, 3]);
    |                    ^^^^^^
    |
help: use `Box::new()` instead
    |
451 |         let foo = (Box::new(42), [1, 2, 3]);
    |                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

error: could not compile `guard` (lib) due to 4 previous errors

This crated thread seemed like not the worst location for such a report as it seems like a compilation regression. 1.69 did produce warnings, but for rather obvious reasons the author of guard is relatively light on maintenance at this point, and it looks like cargo does not show the warnings from dependencies (by default?), so the (few?) packages which depend on guard likely had no notice of the issue until compilation started failing entirely with 1.70

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

1.70.0 crater runs #111003

25 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

1.70.0 crater runs #111003

Description

Activity

Mark-Simulacrum commented on Apr 30, 2023

craterbot commented on Apr 30, 2023

Mark-Simulacrum commented on Apr 30, 2023

craterbot commented on Apr 30, 2023

craterbot commented on Apr 30, 2023

craterbot commented on Apr 30, 2023

craterbot commented on May 1, 2023

craterbot commented on May 1, 2023

saethlin commented on May 3, 2023

25 remaining items

craterbot commented on May 31, 2023

Mark-Simulacrum commented on May 31, 2023

craterbot commented on May 31, 2023

Mark-Simulacrum commented on May 31, 2023

craterbot commented on May 31, 2023

craterbot commented on May 31, 2023

craterbot commented on Jun 1, 2023

xmo-odoo commented on Jun 2, 2023

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions