Skip to content

[WIP] Add an Inside Rust blog post for stage 0 std redesign #1582

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

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
56 changes: 56 additions & 0 deletions content/inside-rust/stage0-redesign/index.md
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TODO: include pre/post CLI invocations and compare their behavioral differences.

Notably,

  • ./x build library --stage 0 (no-op in post) and ./x build library (0 pre, 1 post)
  • ./x build library --stage 0

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TODO: having someone on t-libs and someone on t-compiler skim it and sign off that it makes sense

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TODO: move motivation section towards the end

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TODO: create two dedicated bootstrap support threads (or just one?) and link to them from this blog post

  1. For general inqueries (why we're doing this?)
  2. For helping with issues and bugs

Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+++
path = "inside-rust/9999/12/31/redesigning-stage-0-std"
title = "Redesigning stage 0 std"
authors = ["Jieyou Xu"]

[extra]
team = "Bootstrap"
team_url = "https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/infra#team-bootstrap"
+++

# Redesigning stage 0 std

## Summary

We are reworking how the stage 0 bootstrap sequence works (the sequence used to build a stage 1 compiler).

- Before: a stage 0 (beta by default) compiler is used to build the in-tree std, which in turn is used to build the stage 1 compiler.
- After: a stage 0 (beta by default) compiler and a precompiled stage 0 std is instead used to build the stage 1 compiler.

![Difference in stage 0 bootstrap sequence](stage0-redesign-diff.svg)

Notably, this means that after [redesign stage 0 std #119899](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119899) PR lands:

- `./x {build,test,check} library --stage 0` becomes no-op, as stage 0 std is no longer the built in-tree std, and the minimum supported stage to build std is now `1`.
- Consequently, default (test, check, bench) stage values in the library profile are no longer `0`, but instead defaults to `1`.
- Some additional `cfg(bootstrap)` usages may be needed in the compiler sources for dogfooding unstable library features.

## Motivation

The previous stage 0 bootstrapping sequence was a source of endless confusion for compiler, library and bootstrap contributors alike, because std had to support being built by *both* a previous beta rustc and in-tree rustc, with `cfg(bootstrap)` in std sources necessary to distinguish between them. By adjusting the stage 0 bootstrap sequence to instead use a precompiled stage 0 std instead of building the in-tree std, we hope to (1) simplify library development workflow to no longer need `cfg(bootstrap)` and (2) enable simplifying some bootstrap logic related to building in-tree std in stage 0.

This was [originally proposed by @jyn514 in the MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#619](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/619).

## What does this mean for a typical library workflow?

- Crucially, `./x {build,test,check} library --stage 0` becomes no-op and are no longer supported. Building the in-tree std now requires a stage 1 compiler.
- Consequently, library contributors are *strongly* encouraged to enable `rust.download-rustc = "if-unchanged"` to avoid having to build a stage 1 compiler. Note that this is the default for `profile = "library"`, but you may need to specify it manually if you don't use a `profile`.
- `cfg(bootstrap)` should no longer be needed for library sources.

### Caveat: `libtest` changes

See the *Recommended config: have `compiletest` instead depend on precompiled stage 0 libtest* section below.

## What does this mean for a typical compiler workflow?

- If unstable library features are being dogfooded, some additional `cfg(bootstrap)` usages may now be needed in compiler sources.

### Caveat: `libtest` changes

See the *Recommended config: have `compiletest` instead depend on precompiled stage 0 libtest* section below.

## Recommended config: have `compiletest` instead depend on precompiled stage 0 libtest

`compiletest` currently depends on in-tree libtest. For workflows that involve building the compiler, this can cause `compiletest` rebuilds if stage 1 library is rebuilt as a consequence of compiler changes. If you don't intend to change libtest, you can [specify `build.compiletest-use-stage0-libtest = true` to instead have `compiletest` depend on precompiled stage 0 libtest](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139386). That way, compiler test iterations can avoid rebuilding `compiletest` unnecessarily. This is already the default unless the `dist` profile is used.

Note that some CI jobs have `build.compiletest-use-stage0-libtest = true` set while others have `build.compiletest-use-stage0-libtest = false`, meaning that libtest programmatic API changes can require adding `cfg(bootstrap)`/`cfg(not(bootstrap))` to `compiletest`'s libtest API use sites. However, in practice we expect this to be very rare.
Loading