Skip to content

Updated dates #2796

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
Ko496-glitch wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+6 −6
Open

Updated dates #2796

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4b7d94d
Updated dates
Ko496-glitch Mar 14, 2026
880dfa5
updated the llvm 21 and 22 links
Ko496-glitch Mar 22, 2026
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
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions src/backend/updating-llvm.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
# Updating LLVM

<!-- date-check: Aug 2024 -->
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 Mar 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe this date-check is left over from when this used to hard-code LLVM versions. There's nothing here anymore that's version specific so I think we can just remove this date-check altogether rather than updating it.

Rust supports building against multiple LLVM versions:

* Tip-of-tree for the current LLVM development branch is usually supported within a few days.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -91,7 +90,6 @@ An example PR: [#59089](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59089)

## New LLVM Release Updates

<!-- date-check: Jul 2023 -->
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 Mar 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto, I think we can remove this.


Unlike bugfixes,
updating to a new release of LLVM typically requires a lot more work.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -172,12 +170,14 @@ so let's go through each in detail.
You'll change at least
`src/llvm-project` and will likely also change [`llvm-wrapper`] as well.

<!-- date-check: mar 2025 -->
<!-- date-check: March 2026 -->
> For prior art, here are some previous LLVM updates:
> - [LLVM 17](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115959)
> - [LLVM 18](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120055)
> - [LLVM 19](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127513)
> - [LLVM 20](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135763)
> - [LLVM 21](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143684)
> - [LLVM 22](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/150722)

Note that sometimes it's easiest to land [`llvm-wrapper`] compatibility as a PR
before actually updating `src/llvm-project`.
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/borrow-check/region-inference/member-constraints.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ member constraints come in.
## Choices are always lifetime parameters

At present, the "choice" regions from a member constraint are always lifetime
parameters from the current function. As of <!-- date-check --> October 2021,
parameters from the current function. As of <!-- date-check --> March 2026,
this falls out from the placement of impl Trait, though in the future it may not
be the case. We take some advantage of this fact, as it simplifies the current
code. In particular, we don't have to consider a case like `'0 member of ['1,
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/diagnostics/error-codes.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Note that not all _historical_ (no longer emitted) error codes have explanations
The explanations are written in Markdown (see the [CommonMark Spec] for
specifics around syntax), and all of them are linked in the [`rustc_error_codes`] crate.
Please read [RFC 1567] for details on how to format and write long error codes.
As of <!-- date-check --> February 2023, there is an
As of <!-- date-check --> March 2026, there is an
effort[^new-explanations] to replace this largely outdated RFC with a new more flexible standard.

Error explanations should expand on the error message and provide details about
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/diagnostics/lintstore.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ which boils down to a static with type [`&rustc_lint_defs::Lint`]
as the macro is somewhat unwieldy to add new fields to,
like all macros).

As of <!-- date-check --> Aug 2022,
As of <!-- date-check --> March 2026,
we lint against direct declarations without the use of the macro.
Comment on lines -24 to 25
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 Mar 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

have you verified this is still true?

Copy link
Author

@Ko496-glitch Ko496-glitch Mar 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jyn514 (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/main/compiler/rustc_lint/src/lib.rs)

i checked the above lib.rs looks like we are still using LINT_PASS_IMPL_WITHOUT_MACRO so i guess this is still true because this will act as global identifier. Any thoughts ?


Lint declarations don't carry any "state" - they are merely global identifiers
Expand Down
Loading