Stream: t-compiler

Topic: weekly meeting 2018-10-04


pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:32, on Zulip):

just a heads up to @T-compiler that we'll be starting our weekly meeting in about 28 minutes

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 13:37, on Zulip):

in the meeting, can you first approve stable backports? there is a PR up for 1.29.2

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:38, on Zulip):

@Pietro Albini tell you what, I'll have a go at moving the list of beta-nominated issues up in our weekly agenda

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 13:39, on Zulip):

thanks :D

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 13:39, on Zulip):

this week there are also stable backports though :P

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:41, on Zulip):

apparently we needed to add a link for that to the agenda anyway, so I'll just put it next to the beta nominations

varkor (Oct 04 2018 at 13:50, on Zulip):

what's the situation with etherpad?
it'd be nice if you could create gists owned by organisations, but that doesn't appear possible

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:51, on Zulip):

I've wondered if we should just make a github issue with the agenda, and lock it so it won't get comments.

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:51, on Zulip):

Then As a true hack, we could put the issue number of the agenda into the title of the weekly meeting

davidtwco (Oct 04 2018 at 13:51, on Zulip):

Could make a t-compiler repo similar to how some working groups have repos to organize in.

varkor (Oct 04 2018 at 13:54, on Zulip):

maybe the pre-existing https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes could be repurposed...

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:59, on Zulip):

FYI I'm taking the liberty of approving "incr.comp.: Don't automatically enable -Zshare-generics for incr. comp. builds." #54557 for beta backport

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 13:59, on Zulip):

I'm tempted to do the same for "do not normalize all non-scalar constants to a ConstValue::ScalarPair" #54693, which looks very mechanical

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:00, on Zulip):

(or we could ask @RalfJ to make the variant that does not get rid of ScalarMaybeUndef that they suggested...)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:02, on Zulip):

Okay @T-compiler lets get started!

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:02, on Zulip):

ok

RalfJ (Oct 04 2018 at 14:02, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix I have already made that variant...

RalfJ (Oct 04 2018 at 14:03, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54759

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:04, on Zulip):

First we have the list of P-high issues

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:04, on Zulip):

first P-high: "std-using paths work just fine in 2018 edition #![no_std]" #53166

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:04, on Zulip):

Regarding #53166, I left a comment at the bottom, but basically its waiting on a question that I believe will be resolved at the T-lang meeting tonight

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:04, on Zulip):

in any case its assigned to me so I'll follow up on it after the T-lang meeting

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:05, on Zulip):

next up: "ICE: librustc/traits/codegen/mod.rs:68: Encountered error OutputTypeParameterMismatch" #53420

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:05, on Zulip):

how did this get P-high?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:05, on Zulip):

I assigned this P-high today. Its an ICE. I suspect its something with normalizing higher-ranked types

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:05, on Zulip):

isn't this an old issue?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:06, on Zulip):

its old but I didn't see any one commenting on it besides earthengine (the person who filed it)

Charley Ren (Oct 04 2018 at 14:06, on Zulip):

hi, my first time attending the meeting. Nice to meet everyone.

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:06, on Zulip):

I think that this OutputTypeParameterMismatch issue had been reported a lot of times

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:06, on Zulip):

(I agree)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:07, on Zulip):

good news is that i'm working on the universe stuff that I think will finally fix it :) I was hoping to look into it

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:07, on Zulip):

I think https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29997 is the first time, from 2015

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:07, on Zulip):

Okay. I'm happy to downgrade it. Is there a bug I can reference it being a duplicate of?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:07, on Zulip):

not sure it deserves P-high, but maybe just because it's a long standing annoyance

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:08, on Zulip):

okay I'll leave a note

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:08, on Zulip):

In principle, I don't like removing P-high unless we're explicitly retagging as P-medium

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:08, on Zulip):

is that what we're doing?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

yea, P-medium

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

fix when lazy normalization comes in I think

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

or rather, I'll tag #29997 as P-medium and close this as duplicate of that

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

or maybe it can be done without lazy normalization

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix maybe also copy the minimized version from that issue

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

in case they have a slightly different root cause?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:09, on Zulip):

over to #29997 you mean? okay

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:10, on Zulip):

I done that myself

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:11, on Zulip):

okay great

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:11, on Zulip):

next P-high: "Regression in #[allow(deprecated)] for impl Trait return type" #54045

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:11, on Zulip):

Looks like @Oli is on top of this

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:12, on Zulip):

jup, PR is r+ed

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:12, on Zulip):

next P-high: "Compiler panic using 'static_assertions'" #54327

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:12, on Zulip):

so, on this one: a week ago we discussed this and determined that it was mistagged as a regression

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:13, on Zulip):

so I removed the corresponding regression label, but left the P-high

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

I think this is the case where @eddyb said the ICE is "correct"

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

it's just a diagnostics ICE imo

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

in the sense that we can't handle this scenario elegantly

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

but we can't (without lazy norm) find a nice way to rule it out?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

The question is how to prioritize doing a controlled error exit here

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

I still don't really fully understand that

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:14, on Zulip):

but @eddyb and I were supposed to follow up and did not :)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:15, on Zulip):

Maybe I can assign this to you and @eddyb so that one of you will remember to follow up with the other to resolve that question then?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:15, on Zulip):

ok

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:15, on Zulip):

and give either of you carte blanche to remove P-high at your whim?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:15, on Zulip):

seems fine

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:15, on Zulip):

(of course, @Oli now says it's a diagnostic case...)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:16, on Zulip):

seems fine

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:16, on Zulip):

but yes feel free to assign to me

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:16, on Zulip):

I will investigate to my satisfaction :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:16, on Zulip):

I'd like to do so anyway

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:17, on Zulip):

last P-high: "trait permitting extra members" #54665

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:17, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix sure this can't be implemented without lazy normalization or terrible hacks

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:17, on Zulip):

that amount to doing lazy normalization in some cases

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:17, on Zulip):

#54665 sounds like it has been reduced to a pretty minimal test case that relies on features in edition 2018

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

which means it actually is high priority to resolve, right?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

seems pretty high to me!

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

looks like it

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix assign to me if you like

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis do you want to keep it for now? I can take it if you want or we can try to find another volunteer

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

I'm going to do some bug fixing today

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:18, on Zulip):

Okay I'll leave @nikomatsakis assigned for now

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:19, on Zulip):

this looks like a resolve problem, so I would ask one of the resolve people

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:19, on Zulip):

Okay, next: At the request of @Pietro Albini we're going to go through the list of backport nominations before we go through the other stuff

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:19, on Zulip):

aka @Vadim Petrochenkov

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:20, on Zulip):

(but this seems like a good idea in general so I've just changed the agenda permanently to reflect this delta)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:20, on Zulip):

I'll dig in a bit and cc them with whatever I find; it does seem related to resolve

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:20, on Zulip):

so beta-nominated issues ((for everyone, not just T-compiler; I'll try to remember to filter as we go...))

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:21, on Zulip):

I mentioned right before the meeting started that I beta-accepted #54557. Feel free to voice your objection if you don't want it backported.

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:21, on Zulip):

next beta-nomination: "resolve: Disambiguate a subset of conflicts "macro_rules" vs "macro name in module"" #54605

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:22, on Zulip):

this seems small but I have no notion of relative risk in this code

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:22, on Zulip):

yea the bus factor for resolve is annoyingly low

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:22, on Zulip):

its fixing #54472 fyi

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

wait, why is that closed..

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

because it's fixed on nightly

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

oh

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

a lot of the issues are closed before they're backported

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

I had thought we try not to do that

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

just a side-effect of "fixes #9999999"

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

but maybe I misremember

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:23, on Zulip):

I'm ok with a beta backport I guess

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:24, on Zulip):

I had thought we try not to do that

(or rather, that one often reopens the bug tracking the beta regression)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:24, on Zulip):

does anyone object to a beta backport of #54605 ?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:25, on Zulip):

okay tagged as beta-accepted

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:25, on Zulip):

next: "do not normalize all non-scalar constants to a ConstValue::ScalarPair" #54693

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:26, on Zulip):

oh @RalfJ already chimed in about this up above

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:26, on Zulip):

the beta-backport is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54759

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:26, on Zulip):

why did it get tagged as S-blocked ?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:26, on Zulip):

which looks fairly low-risk

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:26, on Zulip):

@Pietro Albini ^ ?

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I think blocked on beta approval of the original nightly PR

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:27, on Zulip):

why did the error messages change in #54759?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:27, on Zulip):

probably because the place the const eval error happened changed

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:28, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix yep, because that PR was blocked on the approval

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:28, on Zulip):

the error change also happens on the original PR

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:28, on Zulip):

why does this change that? well, I guess I'm ok with beta backporting if @Oli is

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:28, on Zulip):

(usually PRs are created after beta-accepted)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:28, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54693/files#diff-801182890fb4f1070a22f5989b95a4eeL25

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:29, on Zulip):

I am ok with backporting

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:29, on Zulip):

okay lets beta-accept #54759 then

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:29, on Zulip):

the change in diagnostics is due to going from const eval errors to validation errors

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:30, on Zulip):

I guess that is a side-effect of not normalizing

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:31, on Zulip):

okay next beta-nomination: "normalize param-env type-outlives predicates last" #54701

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:31, on Zulip):

should be quite low risk I think

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:31, on Zulip):

(note: I'll probably just merge @RalfJ's backport on my rollup)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:31, on Zulip):

well, this stuff has sometimes surprising side effects I guess,

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:31, on Zulip):

but we stabilized inferring outlives and so we really ought to fix the resulting regressions

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:32, on Zulip):

so :+1: from me

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:32, on Zulip):

re const eval: the new behavior was always present in structs with more than 2 elements - see https://github.com/RalfJung/rust/blob/d62aa3e085245621218759f8c8d56e29f600b74c/src/test/ui/consts/const-eval/union-ice.rs#L35

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:32, on Zulip):

okay, any objections to beta-backport of #54701 ?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:32, on Zulip):

sure it's either that or bouncing out inferring outlives

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:32, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:32, on Zulip):

I think it's a little bit risky

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:33, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis is inferring outlives something we must have in the beta?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:33, on Zulip):

just to make sure the question gets posed...

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:33, on Zulip):

if there was no time pressure, I would prefer to bounce inferring outlives from beta

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I think we could bounce it

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:34, on Zulip):

we need it for RC2, but that's independent

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:34, on Zulip):

(current beta is RC1, right?)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:34, on Zulip):

Okay: @Ariel Ben-Yehuda do you think you'd be able to be in charge of bouncing inferred outlives?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:34, on Zulip):

(well, I know that's true)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I can open the PR

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:35, on Zulip):

Okay then. Lets tag PR #54701 as not beta-accepted. If something goes horribly wrong with bouncing inferred outlives, we can revisit the question.

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:37, on Zulip):

ok

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:37, on Zulip):

last beta-nomination: "Fix dead code lint for functions using impl Trait" #54810

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:37, on Zulip):

opneed 4 hours ago

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

I don't think the PR is particularly risky, I just think that landing trait system changes on beta is a risky concern.

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

but last beta nomination

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

I dont ... really care either way about #54810

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

it seems low risk, but also low reward? :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

looks pretty harmless

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

"just a lint"

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:38, on Zulip):

I tagged it because the issue was tagged as a regression

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I don't feel strongly about it

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

it feels worth it to me

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

well

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

/me reconsiders

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

is it a regression?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

oh yes it is

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

yea

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:39, on Zulip):

used to lint, now it does not

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:40, on Zulip):

with the PR it'll lint again

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:40, on Zulip):

yeah, I think we should fix it

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 14:40, on Zulip):

not very problematic if we don't backport

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:40, on Zulip):

okay lets backport.

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:40, on Zulip):

lets backport

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:41, on Zulip):

Unless anyone objects?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:41, on Zulip):

Okay, next up: nominations for backport to stable

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:42, on Zulip):

namely: "Do not put noalias annotations by default" #54639

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:42, on Zulip):

Seems low risk and high reward, right?

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:42, on Zulip):

if this is going to be approved 1.29.2 will be shipped next thu

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:43, on Zulip):

Fixes: "Incorrect code generation for nalgebra's Matrix::swap_rows()" #54462 FYI

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:43, on Zulip):

(along with rls on win-gnu)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:43, on Zulip):

@Pietro Albini did we decide to do a stable point release then?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:43, on Zulip):

@Pietro Albini wait: do you mean regardless of whether this is approved, 1.29.2 will be shipped?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:43, on Zulip):

if so, we had better do #54639, as that was the whole impetus

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

or at least a major one

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis that was the consensus on the release team meeting yesterday

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

sgtm

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

sgtm then

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

oh, not regardless

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

do we do point releases for non-regression non-security items?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:44, on Zulip):

@Pietro Albini the reason I'm confused is because of the addendum you added about "(along with rls on win-gnu)"

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:45, on Zulip):

that made it sound like there was already something in the pipeline for the point release?

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:45, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix oh, no, that's the other change we're going to ship along with this

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:45, on Zulip):

but if we chose not to approve this, would you then cancel the point release?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

do we do point releases for non-regression non-security items?

"ordinarily no, but potentially yes if they have high impact" is — I think — the rule. We're still feeling our way here I think.

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

hmm, we would probably rediscuss the release if this is not approved

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

that said, I think that #54639 is addressing a security issue

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

Okay. But in any case, #54462 is a regression-from-stable-to-stable

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

or at least a "soundness issue"

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

soundness issue != security issue

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:46, on Zulip):

it's a long-standing regression-from-stable-to-stable

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:47, on Zulip):

agreed

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:47, on Zulip):

I feel like we shouldn't really debate the policy of whether to do the point release, personally, but just if we think the code is safe to backport. Otherwise, we'll be going round and round.

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:47, on Zulip):

is the phrase "non-regression non-security" supposed to be an AND of the two, or an OR?

Wesley Wiser (Oct 04 2018 at 14:48, on Zulip):

If it's already beta backported, then shipping a stable point release only gets the fix in users' hands 2 weeks earlier than they would get it in the next stable release.

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:48, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix I think point releases should be either for security issues OR for severe regressions

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:48, on Zulip):

Okay so then the question becomes "What's a severe regression" :)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:48, on Zulip):

I mean, new severe regressions

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:49, on Zulip):

I still think this is is a low-risk high-value, but I actually don't care much either way

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:49, on Zulip):

so we discussed this in the core team and decided to let the release team make the call

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:49, on Zulip):

Okay, so core team delegated to release team and the release team said that they want it.

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:49, on Zulip):

I guess we ought to decide how to manage these things

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:49, on Zulip):

So if they're fine with it, the only reason we have to object is just because of the precedent it sets, right?

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:49, on Zulip):

and I agree that having clear criteria is a good idea; what @Ariel Ben-Yehuda suggested potentially makes sense, I'm not really sure, I don't have a strong personal opinion

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:50, on Zulip):

I do think that @Wesley Wiser has made a good point

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:50, on Zulip):

that said, I feel like .. this is pretty bad misbehavior; in theory we support the current release, so it seems reasonable to fix

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:51, on Zulip):

I guess my main point is that I want to go with the decision that was made, in part "because it was made", and I'm sure they considered the timing of beta :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:51, on Zulip):

but if we want to push back, ok

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:51, on Zulip):

actually, seeing the set of backports, there's a third category - accidental stabilizations

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:51, on Zulip):

At this point I'm more worried that we're just spinning our wheels talking about this. We had a bunch of "sgtm's" up above...

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:51, on Zulip):

(in particular, I wasn't thinking before about when the regression occurred per se)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:53, on Zulip):

I think our policy is sufficiently unclear that we should not legislate the backport of this PR based on what the policy hypoethically is...

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:53, on Zulip):

I say compiler-team approve, but ask release-team for whether we want

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:53, on Zulip):

*whether they want to point-release

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:53, on Zulip):

I personally like that

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:53, on Zulip):

as in, re-delegate to release team

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:53, on Zulip):

in terms of the level of effort/reward involved?

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:54, on Zulip):

well, the release team approved it yesterday

Pietro Albini (Oct 04 2018 at 14:55, on Zulip):

so we're good to go I think

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:55, on Zulip):

I think it's reasonable to say this:

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:55, on Zulip):

in general it's probably a good idea to decide who decides and leave it at that :)

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:55, on Zulip):

maybe we need a broader conversation about it though

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:55, on Zulip):

(stable backports and the criteria etc)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:56, on Zulip):

OKAY okay (sorry for yelling)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:57, on Zulip):

3 minutes left :wink:

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:57, on Zulip):

here's all teh stable-to-beta regressions: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/regression-from-stable-to-beta

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:58, on Zulip):

We've already looked at the ones tagged T-compiler and T-high

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:58, on Zulip):

there is #54387 which is not tagged with T-compiler, but does have someone assigned to it.

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:58, on Zulip):

has a PR up

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:58, on Zulip):

(and I think we already discussed it)

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:58, on Zulip):

(or at least it has a PR, right)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

next

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

there are a few that are assigned to you, @pnkfelix ?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54464

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

next: "[1.30 beta] Macros recursion limit detection changed" #54464

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

or are we going through them 1 by 1

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

ok

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

we discussed this last week

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

well

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

one might argue we shoud prioritize the ones that are unassigned

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

before getting status reports...

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

@Vadim Petrochenkov makes a good case for WONTFIX there :)

nagisa (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

I knew something was wrong… I hadn’t zulip open :D

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

[1.30 beta] Macros recursion limit detection changed #54464

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

sure

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

to be wontfix

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 14:59, on Zulip):

lets close #54464 as wontfix, yeah?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

+1

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

we can't treat small recursion level changes as regressions

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

next: "[1.30 beta] Multiple applicable items in scope" #54474

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

oops

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

forgot about my T-compiler filter

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

[1.30 beta] Trait bound is not satisfied #54467

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:00, on Zulip):

fixed on nightly

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

will revert infer_outlives_requirements for beta

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

right, we discussed. cool cool

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

[1.30 beta] Multiple applicable items in scope #54474

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54474

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

tagged as T-libs

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

yea looks T-libs

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

so ... let tehm deal with it ...?

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

yea nothing we can do about it

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:01, on Zulip):

I havne't looked at #54477 nor #54478 yet

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:02, on Zulip):

but they can stay assigned to me

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:02, on Zulip):

sure that needs to be done quickly

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:02, on Zulip):

ok

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:02, on Zulip):

[1.30 beta] More chars considered alphanumeric in 1.30 #54481 is T-libs

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:03, on Zulip):

yep

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:03, on Zulip):

next is: "[1.30 beta] Compiler hangs when compiling primal crate for armv7-apple-ios" #54627

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:03, on Zulip):

anyone want this?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:03, on Zulip):

(initial hypothesis is that its due to LLVM upgrade)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:03, on Zulip):

yea that makes sense

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

I don't have much time these days

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

@nagisa could you perhaps take point on this?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

not sure if there's much we can do beond confirm that its due to the LLVM upgrade

nagisa (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

The noalias regression is first on my priority list

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

but its good to at least double check that?

nagisa (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

but I can at least try to minimise and report to LLVM

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

Okay, how aboutif I assign to you

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

and if you do not have time soonish

nagisa (Oct 04 2018 at 15:04, on Zulip):

sure

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:05, on Zulip):

you let us know

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:05, on Zulip):

and we'll find someone else

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:05, on Zulip):

and #54754 is last, but it already has the PR we already discussed I think

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:05, on Zulip):

sure

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:06, on Zulip):

I'll assign myself to it just so it has somene to blame if things go wrong

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:07, on Zulip):

okay that was te stable-to-beta regressions

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:07, on Zulip):

but we're 7 minutes over time. :sad:

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

(there's only one regression-from-stable-to-nightly, and it was filed 6 days ago: #54654 . It can wait until next week if it doesn't get addressed in the meantime.)

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

anything else important?

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

there's a waiting on team

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AS-waiting-on-team+label%3AT-compiler

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

oops

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

I meant to link to #54592 in particular

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:08, on Zulip):

namely "Support for disabling PLT for better function call performance" #54592

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:09, on Zulip):

it was waiting on check boxes; I just got mine just now

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:09, on Zulip):

(just @Oli and @Zoxc left )

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 15:09, on Zulip):

looks like it was also blocked on @Zoxc and @Oli but any one of you would suffice I think

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 15:09, on Zulip):

done

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:10, on Zulip):

finally we have the nominated issues: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20label%3AT-compiler%20label%3AI-nominated%20

pnkfelix (Oct 04 2018 at 15:10, on Zulip):

but they can wait

oli (Oct 04 2018 at 15:10, on Zulip):

I overlooked that ping when going though my notifs :confused:

nagisa (Oct 04 2018 at 15:11, on Zulip):

@bors r+-after-fcp wanted

Ariel Ben-Yehuda (Oct 04 2018 at 15:12, on Zulip):

sure

nikomatsakis (Oct 04 2018 at 15:12, on Zulip):

@nagisa sometimes I don't wait for the whole FCP in cases where we could always back out on controversy :)

Last update: Nov 20 2019 at 01:35UTC