Skip to content
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

i686 Windows CI is broken #479

Open
ehuss opened this issue Aug 28, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

i686 Windows CI is broken #479

ehuss opened this issue Aug 28, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@ehuss
Copy link

ehuss commented Aug 28, 2022

The backtrace-rs CI has been broken for a few months because the i686-pc-windows-gnu runner has been failing:

Run cargo test --manifest-path crates/cpp_smoke_test/Cargo.toml
   Compiling cpp_smoke_test v0.1.0 (D:\a\backtrace-rs\backtrace-rs\crates\cpp_smoke_test)
    Finished test [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 13.63s
     Running unittests src\lib.rs (target\debug\deps\cpp_smoke_test-35949726fc43fe32.exe)
error: test failed, to rerun pass '--lib'

Caused by:
  could not execute process `D:\a\backtrace-rs\backtrace-rs\target\debug\deps\cpp_smoke_test-35949726fc43fe32.exe` (never executed)

Cargo is eating the error, but the actual error is ERROR_BAD_EXE_FORMAT (0xC1) usually displayed as %1 is not a valid Win32 application..

My guess is that the GitHub Windows image uses chocolatey to install mingw64. To my understanding, this does not have multilib support and thus isn't properly compiling the 32-bit code. The version reported is:

g++.exe (MinGW-W64 x86_64-posix-seh, built by Brecht Sanders) 11.2.0

I can reproduce this locally with that version from chocolatey.

I'm not well versed in using chocolatey, or how to switch to mingw32.

alexcrichton added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 30, 2022
This is currently broken, as described in #479, and I'm not entirely
sure how to fix so to get things moving again this removes it from CI.
alexcrichton added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 30, 2022
This is currently broken, as described in #479, and I'm not entirely
sure how to fix so to get things moving again this removes it from CI.
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Thanks for digging into this! I fear though that this is far over my head at this point so I've removed the CI in #480. I'll leave this open though if others know how to re-add it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants