-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Conversation
Also updates ELAST to 107 since a new error was added.
Thomasdezeeuw
commented
Jan 12, 2026
I was also wondering if ELAST should be deleted? But since it exists already it might be a breaking change?
@tgross35
tgross35
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Needs updates given the CI failure.
Which macos version is xnu-12377.1.9? If it is MacOS 26, GHA should support that now, and you could send a PR bumping it. Otherwise you can add a skip in libc-test/build.rs, but the CI bump would be much preferred.
rustbot
commented
Jan 12, 2026
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.
Thomasdezeeuw
commented
Jan 13, 2026
Push a commit to update the CI. One issue is that it doesn't seem that macOS 26 is supported on x86_64, so I didn't update the intel runner in
libc/.github/workflows/ci.yaml
Line 219 in df9237d
Thomasdezeeuw
commented
Jan 13, 2026
With the update of macOS the CI now starts to fail:
bad `HOST_VM_INFO64_COUNT` value at byte 0: rust: 38 (0x26) != c 40 (0x28)
rust bytes: 26 00 00 00
c bytes: 28 00 00 00
bad `vm_statistics64_data_t` size: rust: 152 != c 160
bad `vm_statistics64` size: rust: 152 != c 160
size of `vm_statistics64_data_t` is 160 in C and 152 in Rust
size of `struct vm_statistics64` is 160 in C and 152 in Rust
So we need #4926 as well, or ignore it somehow. I didn't see the HOST_VM_INFO64_COUNT failure locally oddly enough.
JohnTitor
commented
Jan 15, 2026
I was also wondering if ELAST should be deleted? But since it exists already it might be a breaking change?
Yeah, it should be removed in 1.0.
So we only can add ENOTCAPABLE on 0.2 as any other things would be a breaking change, a solution here is moving things other than ENOTCAPABLE addiction (and test skip) to #4926, ship this on 0.2, then introduce breaking changes on 1.0 with #4926.
tgross35
commented
Jan 15, 2026
Could you do the CI bump in a separate PR? To keep things that are required from that separate from new API.
Could you do the CI bump in a separate PR?
That will mean the CI will fail, see my comment here: #4925 (comment). But I'm happy to do it.
tgross35
commented
Jan 15, 2026
Yeah that's expected, bumping CI typically requires a few commits to update changed values like that. Getting that through before doing any brand new API just makes things simpler.
480a620 to
728d685
Compare
Thomasdezeeuw
commented
Jan 16, 2026
I've dropped the CI commit (with a force push).
Description
Adds the
ENOTCAPABLEconstant. Also updates ELAST to 107 since a new error was added.Sources
Checklist
libc-test/semverhave been updated*LASTor*MAXareincluded (see #3131)
cd libc-test && cargo test --target mytarget);especially relevant for platforms that may not be checked in CI
@rustbot label +stable-nominated