add some ice tests 5xxxx to 9xxxx

[matthiaskrgr]

Fixes #98842
Fixes #90691
Fixes #88421
Fixes #88212
Fixes #83056
Fixes #80125
Fixes #64784
Fixes #52334

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

rustbot has assigned @davidtwco.
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

[workingjubilee]

@matthiaskrgr can you add

// issue: rust-lang/rust#ISSUE_NUM

as a comment near the top of each test? after the compiletest headers.

[matthiaskrgr]

done

[workingjubilee]

thank you kindly! I have a vague plan to mechanize that soon.

[matthiaskrgr]

@rustbot ready

[fmease]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit d7eeb71 has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r-
#122953 (comment)

[workingjubilee]

@bors rollup=iffy

[matthiaskrgr]

fixed the inline squiggly thingies
@bors r=fmease

[bors]

📌 Commit 114d012 has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 114d012 with merge 6e6c721...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fmease
Pushing 6e6c721 to master...

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

##[endgroup]
Secret source: Actions
Prepare workflow directory
Prepare all required actions
Complete job name: skip if S-waiting-on-bors
##[group]Run # Fetch state and labels of PR
# Fetch state and labels of PR
# Or exit successfully if PR does not exist
JSON=$(gh pr view cargo_update --repo $GITHUB_REPOSITORY --json labels,state || exit 0)
STATE=$(echo "$JSON" | jq -r '.state')
WAITING_ON_BORS=$(echo "$JSON" | jq '.labels[] | any(.name == "S-waiting-on-bors"; .)')

# Exit with error if open and S-waiting-on-bors
if [[ "$STATE" == "OPEN" && "$WAITING_ON_BORS" == "true" ]]; then
  gh run cancel 8410523148
shell: /usr/bin/bash --noprofile --norc -e -o pipefail {0}

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6e6c721): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[1.9%, 3.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 670.64s -> 670.447s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 315.10 MiB -> 315.07 MiB (-0.01%)

[matthiaskrgr]

lol

[RalfJung]

The output here doesn't look endianess-dependent, why is this ignored on big-endian targets?

[fmease]

Good catch, I don't think there's a meaningful reason for that.

[RalfJung]

Cc @uweigand might be worth testing this on a big-endian target and removing the annotation if it passes there.

(Sorry for always pinging you here, unfortunately our platform page doesn't list people to ping for our big-endian targets so I am going off of PRs like #106047. If you are part of a group of people that are helping maintain one of our tier 2 targets, please see #113739.)

[matthiaskrgr]

iirc this was to work around the output differing in #122895 (comment)

[RalfJung]

That's a bitwidth difference, but not an endianess difference.

Also we often use normalization to remove these bitwidth differences as maintaining the bessed output becomes a lot more annoying with stderr-per-bitwidth.

[uweigand]

Cc @uweigand might be worth testing this on a big-endian target and removing the annotation if it passes there.

(Sorry for always pinging you here, unfortunately our platform page doesn't list people to ping for our big-endian targets so I am going off of PRs like #106047. If you are part of a group of people that are helping maintain one of our tier 2 targets, please see #113739.)

Sorry for the late reply. I've now verified that the test continues to pass on s390x if the annotation is removed.