Skip to content

Fix RISC-V Test Failures in ./x test for Multiple Codegen and Assembly Cases #143792

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

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

CaiWeiran
Copy link

This PR addresses and resolves several test failures that occurred when running ./x test on the RISC-V architecture. The issues were due to platform-specific behavior, ABI differences, or code generation inconsistencies specific to RISC-V.

The following tests have been fixed:

  • assembly/dwarf-mixed-versions-lto.rs
  • codegen/const-vector.rs
  • codegen/enum/enum-aggregate.rs
  • codegen/simd/extract-insert-dyn.rs
  • codegen/transmute-scalar.rs
  • codegen/uninhabited-transparent-return-abi.rs

All changes have been tested locally with ./x test on a RISC-V target and now pass as expected.

Notes:

  • These fixes are scoped specifically to enable full test suite compliance for RISC-V targets.
  • No changes were made that affect other architectures.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 11, 2025

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 11, 2025
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
//@ compile-flags: -Copt-level=0 -Cno-prepopulate-passes
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why split this out to a separate file? Skimming the contents I don't see major differences vs the existing file. Maybe we could use revisions instead if there's a few small differences (see tests/codegen/sanitizer/kcfi/emit-kcfi-operand-bundle-itanium-cxx-abi-generalized.rs for example).

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The difference lies in the // CHECK lines. Would it be possible to separate them using revisions?

@CaiWeiran CaiWeiran closed this by deleting the head repository Jul 14, 2025
@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 14, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job tidy failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
fmt check
Diff in /checkout/tests/codegen/transmute-scalar.rs:2:
 //@ compile-flags: -C opt-level=0 -C no-prepopulate-passes
 
 #![crate_type = "lib"]
-#![feature(no_core, repr_simd, arm_target_feature, mips_target_feature, s390x_target_feature, riscv_target_feature)]
+#![feature(
+    no_core,
+    repr_simd,
+    arm_target_feature,
+    mips_target_feature,
+    s390x_target_feature,

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants