rustbuild: use deterministic step ordering and respect path order on the command-line. #40152
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 4c8b39d has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2017
rustbuild: use deterministic step ordering and respect path order on the command-line.
Restores similar behavior to `make` rules, where:
* the step order was always the same, e.g. the testsuite order in `make check`
* `make check-stage1-{cfail,rpass}` would *always* run `cfail` before `rpass`
* `./x.py test--stage 1 src/test/{compile-fail,run-pass}` is now equivalent
r? @alexcrichton
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Restores similar behavior to
makerules, where:make checkmake check-stage1-{cfail,rpass}would always runcfailbeforerpass./x.py test--stage 1 src/test/{compile-fail,run-pass}is now equivalentr? @alexcrichton