mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git
synced 2025-05-14 02:49:40 +00:00
2afe58571e
Update `rand` in the stdlib tests, and remove the `getrandom` feature from it. The main goal is actually removing `getrandom`, so that eventually we can allow running the stdlib test suite on tier3 targets which don't have `getrandom` support. Currently those targets can only run the subset of stdlib tests that exist in uitests, and (generally speaking), we prefer not to test libstd functionality in uitests, which came up recently in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104095 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104185. Additionally, the fact that we can't update `rand`/`getrandom` means we're stuck with the old set of tier3 targets, so can't test new ones. ~~Anyway, I haven't checked that this actually does allow use on tier3 targets (I think it does not, as some work is needed in stdlib submodules) but it moves us slightly closer to this, and seems to allow at least finally updating our `rand` dep, which definitely improves the status quo.~~ Checked and works now. For the most part, our tests and benchmarks are fine using hard-coded seeds. A couple tests seem to fail with this (stuff manipulating the environment expecting no collisions, for example), or become pointless (all inputs to a function become equivalent). In these cases I've done a (gross) dance (ab)using `RandomState` and `Location::caller()` for some extra "entropy". Trying to share that code seems *way* more painful than it's worth given that the duplication is a 7-line function, even if the lines are quite gross. (Keeping in mind that sharing it would require adding `rand` as a non-dev dep to std, and exposing a type from it publicly, all of which sounds truly awful, even if done behind a perma-unstable feature). See also some previous attempts: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86963 (in particular https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86963#issuecomment-885438936 which explains why this is non-trivial) - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89131 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96626#issuecomment-1114562857 (I tried in that PR at the same time, but settled for just removing the usage of `thread_rng()` from the benchmarks, since that was the main goal). - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104185 - Probably more. It's very tempting of a thing to "just update". r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| backtrace | ||
| collections | ||
| env | ||
| error | ||
| f32 | ||
| f64 | ||
| ffi | ||
| fs | ||
| io | ||
| net | ||
| num | ||
| os | ||
| panic | ||
| path | ||
| personality | ||
| prelude | ||
| process | ||
| sync | ||
| sys | ||
| sys_common | ||
| thread | ||
| time | ||
| alloc.rs | ||
| ascii.rs | ||
| backtrace.rs | ||
| env.rs | ||
| error.rs | ||
| f32.rs | ||
| f64.rs | ||
| fs.rs | ||
| keyword_docs.rs | ||
| lib.rs | ||
| macros.rs | ||
| num.rs | ||
| panic.rs | ||
| panicking.rs | ||
| path.rs | ||
| personality.rs | ||
| primitive_docs.rs | ||
| process.rs | ||
| rt.rs | ||
| time.rs | ||