Switch rtems target to panic unwind #133420
Conversation
|
rustbot has assigned @workingjubilee. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
These commits modify compiler targets. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #133533) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
thesummer
force-pushed
the
rtems-unwind
branch
from
ac14fb7 to
3f94047
Compare
|
@workingjubilee I hope the release stress from the last release is over. Could you please have a look at this PR? Integrating it even without the update to the backtrace submodule would already help me to experiment with some unit test setups. |
|
The changes here look reasonable to me but the backtrace changes need to merge before this right? |
|
@tgross35 I think it is save to merge this one here first as well. Currently the port also requires that backtrace is updated locally, so merging this won't change that. |
|
The backtrace change is so small that maybe we should just try to get that in around the same time. @workingjubilee is backtrace stuck from CI failures or could rust-lang/backtrace-rs#682 get into a release soonish? |
|
@tgross35 Updating the backtrace submodule was blocked by some performance metrics (see this PR #130417). I am not sure if the CI failures of rust-lang/backtrace-rs#682 are related to that. |
|
confused. If this was all that was needed, why wasn't it just done from the get-go...? |
|
Most of the CI failures in backtrace have nothing to do with the ruzstd merge and can simply be fixed by fixing them. |
|
CI will be fixed enough when |
|
@workingjubilee Sorry, for the confusion. I am new to rust compiler development and was working myself upwards from a bare-metal/panic abort system to RTEMS support. Happy New Year btw. |
Swtich the RTEMS target to
panic_unwind.Relates to rust-lang/backtrace-rs#682