Skip to content

Adjust CI to ignore non-rust warnings #3796

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 27, 2025
Merged

Conversation

powerboat9
Copy link
Collaborator

This should make it much easier for us to maintain the expected warnings files

@P-E-P
Copy link
Member

P-E-P commented May 30, 2025

I kinda dislike the idea of batch disabling warning but I fail to find any counter argument. It wouldn't trigger any warning on some rarely modified common files right ?

@powerboat9
Copy link
Collaborator Author

powerboat9 commented May 30, 2025

It wouldn't trigger any warning on some rarely modified common files right ?

What do you mean?

@P-E-P
Copy link
Member

P-E-P commented May 31, 2025

It wouldn't trigger any warning on some rarely modified common files right ?

What do you mean?

Grepping rust will trigger only warning on rust-XXX.{cc,h} files or within the rust/libgrust directories, we rarely modify any files outside of those but this wouldn't be checked by the CI script right ?

@powerboat9
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Grepping rust will trigger only warning on rust-XXX.{cc,h} files or within the rust/libgrust directories, we rarely modify any files outside of those but this wouldn't be checked by the CI script right ?

Yeah, so it is a bit of a trade-off

@powerboat9
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I wonder if having our CI use GCC 15 would help much

@dkm
Copy link
Member

dkm commented Jun 2, 2025

We don't really care about warning outside of rust anyway. And from my recent experience of rebasing over upstream frequently, I can see how this change is needed as I've had to fixup the expected warning several times for stuff we haven't modified.

And you're correct, we should probably use latest GCC as the goal is to fix any issue the compiler may find, so the latest GCC should be more accurate than anything older...

@P-E-P
Copy link
Member

P-E-P commented Jun 16, 2025

Well fine you convinced me, @powerboat9 could you bump the compiler version to gcc 15 ?

@dkm
Copy link
Member

dkm commented Jun 26, 2025

What is missing for getting this one in? If possible, we should merge it before the next bump (I was willing to bump today or tomorrow)

@powerboat9
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This PR should be done as soon as I can finish bugfixing it -- I had pivoted to trying to upgrade our CI to GCC 15, but it looks like that'll be a bit more involved

@powerboat9 powerboat9 force-pushed the fix-ci branch 2 times, most recently from d5910a6 to d2156d8 Compare June 27, 2025 03:31
@powerboat9
Copy link
Collaborator Author

TIL grep exits with 0 if it finds at least one match, 2 if it has an error, and 1 if it doesn't find any matches

This should make it easier for us to ignore warnings from outside the
rust front end, and therefore make it easier for us to pull from
upstream.

ChangeLog:

	* .github/alpine_32bit_log_warnings: Remove lines.
	* .github/glibcxx_ubuntu64b_log_expected_warnings: Likewise.
	* .github/log_expected_warnings: Likewise.
	* .github/workflows/ccpp.yml: Filter out non-rust warnings.
	* .github/workflows/ccpp32alpine.yml: Likewise and remove
	redundant command.
	* .github/safe-grep: New shell script.

Signed-off-by: Owen Avery <[email protected]>
@P-E-P P-E-P added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 27, 2025
Merged via the queue into Rust-GCC:master with commit 05ce24e Jun 27, 2025
13 checks passed
@powerboat9 powerboat9 deleted the fix-ci branch June 27, 2025 13:33
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