Run Windows-only tests only on Windows

[flba-eb]

This removes the need to maintain an ignore-list of all other OSs.

See #102305 for a similar change.

[rustbot]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 3e72a01 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r- failed in a rollup
https://github.com/rust-lang-ci/rust/actions/runs/3591507532/jobs/6046125756#step:26:8103
#105118

[ChrisDenton]

These tests are windows-msvc only, so windows-gnu will not work.

[flba-eb]

@ChrisDenton : Thanks for taking a look at it! gnu is now ignored. I tested the combination of only and ignore with only-unix, it works as expected. Wasn't able to test with windows though.

Issue should be resolved now.

[flba-eb]

@ChrisDenton , hmm, are we sure that the second test src/test/codegen/panic-abort-windows.rs really only works in msvc (as the comment suggests)? I'm asking because:

• gnu was not ignored before
• I think this test did not fail

If you agree I would remove the ignore-gnu line in the test and update the comment.

[ChrisDenton]

Oh hm you're right. Yeah the comment should definitely be updated as well.

[flba-eb]

@ChrisDenton done. Please review 😄

[ChrisDenton]

LGTM 👍

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup=iffy

[bors]

📌 Commit c04d674 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c04d674 with merge 367ecff...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing 367ecff to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (367ecff): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[4.6%, 4.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.3%	[-5.3%, -5.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-2.7%, -2.7%]	1