taiki-e
commented
2 years ago The underlying problem seems to be that
crossuses by defaultmaintag that may be incompatible with the current version. Using the tag that matches the version (0.2.4in this case) seems to work around the problem.
Fixing the underlying problem (i.e., using an image known to be compatible with the current version by default) will avoid similar breakage in the future, but will not fix the problem occurring in the current release. In any case, it seems that aarch64-linux-musl-gcc.sh needs to handle the case where the CROSS_RUSTC_MINOR_VERSION environment variable is not present. Something like the following:
if [[ -z "${CROSS_RUSTC_MINOR_VERSION:-}" ]]; then
CROSS_RUSTC_MINOR_VERSION=$(rustc -Vv | grep '^release:' | cut -d ':' -f2 | cut -d '.' -f2)
fi
Alexhuszagh
NobodyXu
Emilgardis
Checklist
Describe your issue
https://github.com/cross-rs/cross/commit/9311417f7d251103c21f547aa341e643f08a5fd8 added
CROSS_RUSTC_MINOR_VERSIONenvironment variables without fallback, so the current docker image of themaintag is incompatible with the released version of cross (v0.2.4).log: https://github.com/taiki-e/cargo-llvm-cov/actions/runs/3170903254/jobs/5163844829
The underlying problem seems to be that
crossuses by defaultmaintag that may be incompatible with the current version. Using the tag that matches the version (0.2.4in this case) seems to work around the problem.What target(s) are you cross-compiling for?
aarch64-unknown-linux-musl
Which operating system is the host (e.g computer cross is on) running?
What architecture is the host?
What container engine is cross using?
cross version
cross 0.2.4 (4645d93 2022-07-10)
Example
Probably this can also be reproduced with a crate created with
cargo new --bininstead of cargo-llvm-cov.Additional information / notes
No response