Reduce rustdoc GUI flakyness, take 2 #151145
Merged
+24
−6
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
|
jieyouxu
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2026
Member
|
@bors r+ p=1 (hopefully mitigates flaky rustdoc-gui test) |
rust-bors
bot
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
Contributor
rust-bors
bot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
rust-bors
bot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
|
💔 Test for 605e098 failed: CI. Failed jobs:
|
Member
|
@bors retry (codegen-llvm flaky test) |
rust-bors
bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Member
|
Can be included in rollup... but anyway |
Contributor
|
⌛ Testing commit 4bacdf7 with merge bec7c4a... Workflow: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/21018146074 |
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2026
Revert "avoid phi node for pointers flowing into Vec appends rust-lang#130998" This reverts PR rust-lang#130998 because the added test seems to be flaky / non-deterministic, and has been failing in unrelated PRs during merge CI: - rust-lang#151129 (comment) - rust-lang#150772 (comment) - rust-lang#150925 (comment) - rust-lang#151145 (comment) See also [#t-infra > Tree ops](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/242791-t-infra/topic/Tree.20ops/with/568111767). > [!NOTE] > > This is a "fallback" PR in case the FileCheck failure isn't obvious (i.e. fix-forward). This PR reverts rust-lang#130998 wholesale in case the failure is genuine and indicative of a bug in the actual implementation change.
Member
|
Yield to enclosing special rollup. @bors retry |
Contributor
|
❗ You can only retry pull requests that are approved and have a previously failed auto build |
Member
|
@bors yield |
Contributor
|
Auto build cancelled. Cancelled workflows: The next pull request likely to be tested is #151151. |
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2026
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2026
Rollup merge of #151150 - revert-vec-append, r=Zalathar Revert "avoid phi node for pointers flowing into Vec appends #130998" This reverts PR #130998 because the added test seems to be flaky / non-deterministic, and has been failing in unrelated PRs during merge CI: - #151129 (comment) - #150772 (comment) - #150925 (comment) - #151145 (comment) See also [#t-infra > Tree ops](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/242791-t-infra/topic/Tree.20ops/with/568111767). > [!NOTE] > > This is a "fallback" PR in case the FileCheck failure isn't obvious (i.e. fix-forward). This PR reverts #130998 wholesale in case the failure is genuine and indicative of a bug in the actual implementation change.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Fixes #151006 (hopefully).
Seems like #151053 did not fix the flakyness issue, so here is another take on this issue.
r? @jieyouxu