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

Rustup #2281

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 29, 2022
Merged

Rustup #2281

merged 4 commits into from
Jun 29, 2022

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Fix our stacktrace after rust-lang/rust#98549. Now we can control whether caller_location should be pruned!

@@ -75,7 +75,6 @@ LL | ABORT();
= note: inside `std::panicking::rust_panic_with_hook` at RUSTLIB/std/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
= note: inside closure at RUSTLIB/std/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
= note: inside `std::sys_common::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::<[closure@std::rt::begin_panic<&str>::{closure#0}], !>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/sys_common/backtrace.rs:LL:CC
= note: inside `std::rt::begin_panic::<&str>` at RUSTLIB/std/src/panicking.rs:LL:CC
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We now prune a but more than before since we remove all #[caller_location] frames, not just the ones at the top. IMO that makes sense. If it doesn't, we should also adjust the same in CTFE.

Cc @saethlin

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree this makes sense.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

📌 Commit f389d46 has been approved by RalfJung

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2022
Rustup

Fix our stacktrace after rust-lang/rust#98549. Now we can control whether `caller_location` should be pruned!
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

⌛ Testing commit f389d46 with merge a2ce962...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+

@RalfJung RalfJung closed this Jun 29, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

  • This pull request previously failed. You should add more commits to fix the bug, or use retry to trigger a build again.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

📌 Commit f389d46 has been approved by RalfJung

@RalfJung RalfJung reopened this Jun 29, 2022
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

📌 Commit 839c120 has been approved by RalfJung

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 839c120 with merge 63d6605...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 29, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: RalfJung
Pushing 63d6605 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 63d6605 into rust-lang:master Jun 29, 2022
@RalfJung RalfJung deleted the rustup branch June 29, 2022 15:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants