Add diagnostic items for a few of core's builtin macros #117596
Merged
+3
−0
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? Nilstrieb |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2023
…iaskrgr Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#116017 (Don't pass `-stdlib=libc++` when building C files on macOS) - rust-lang#117524 (bootstrap/setup: create hooks directory if non-existing) - rust-lang#117588 (Remove unused LoadResult::DecodeIncrCache variant) - rust-lang#117596 (Add diagnostic items for a few of core's builtin macros) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2023
Rollup merge of rust-lang#117596 - thomcc:core_macro_diag_items, r=Nilstrieb Add diagnostic items for a few of core's builtin macros Specifically, `env`, `option_env`, and `include`. There are a number of reasons why people might want to look at these in lints (For example, to ensure that things behave consistently, detect things that might make builds less reproducible, etc). Concretely, in PL/Rust (well, `plrustc`) we have lints that forbid these (which I'd like to [add to clippy as restriction lints](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/257328-clippy/topic/Landing.20a.20flotilla.20of.20lints.3F) eventually), and `dylint` also has [lints that look for `env!`/`option_env!`](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint/blob/109a07e9f27a9651ef33b6677ccaddd21466e97a/examples/general/env_cargo_path/src/lib.rs) (although perhaps not `include`), which would benefit from this. My experience is that it's pretty annoying to (robustly) check uses of builtin macros without these IME, although that's perhaps just my own fault (e.g. I could be doing it wrong). At `@Nilstrieb's` suggestion, I've added a comment that explains why these are here, even though they are not used in the compiler. This is mostly to discourage removal, although it's not a big deal if it happens (I'm certainly not suggesting the presence of these be in any way stable). --- In theory this is a library PR (in that it's in library/core), but I'm going to roll compiler because the existence of this or not is much more likely something they care about rather than libs. Hopefully nobody objects to this. r? compiler
bors-ferrocene bot
added a commit
to ferrocene/ferrocene
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 6, 2023
84: Automated pull from upstream `master` r=Dajamante a=github-actions[bot] This PR pulls the following changes from the upstream repository: * rust-lang/rust#117585 * rust-lang/rust#117576 * rust-lang/rust#96979 * rust-lang/rust#117191 * rust-lang/rust#117179 * rust-lang/rust#117574 * rust-lang/rust#117537 * rust-lang/rust#117608 * rust-lang/rust#117596 * rust-lang/rust#117588 * rust-lang/rust#117524 * rust-lang/rust#116017 * rust-lang/rust#117504 * rust-lang/rust#117469 * rust-lang/rust#116218 * rust-lang/rust#117589 * rust-lang/rust#117581 * rust-lang/rust#117503 * rust-lang/rust#117590 * rust-lang/rust#117583 * rust-lang/rust#117570 * rust-lang/rust#117562 * rust-lang/rust#117534 * rust-lang/rust#116894 * rust-lang/rust#110340 * rust-lang/rust#113343 * rust-lang/rust#117579 * rust-lang/rust#117094 * rust-lang/rust#117566 * rust-lang/rust#117564 * rust-lang/rust#117554 * rust-lang/rust#117550 * rust-lang/rust#117343 * rust-lang/rust#115274 * rust-lang/rust#117540 * rust-lang/rust#116412 * rust-lang/rust#115333 * rust-lang/rust#117507 * rust-lang/rust#117538 * rust-lang/rust#117533 * rust-lang/rust#117523 * rust-lang/rust#117520 * rust-lang/rust#117505 * rust-lang/rust#117434 * rust-lang/rust#117535 * rust-lang/rust#117510 * rust-lang/rust#116439 * rust-lang/rust#117508 Co-authored-by: Ben Wiederhake <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: SabrinaJewson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: J-ZhengLi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: koka <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bjorn3 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Joshua Liebow-Feeser <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lengyijun <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Zalathar <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Oli Scherer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Philipp Krones <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: y21 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bors <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bohan <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Specifically,
env,option_env, andinclude. There are a number of reasons why people might want to look at these in lints (For example, to ensure that things behave consistently, detect things that might make builds less reproducible, etc).Concretely, in PL/Rust (well,
plrustc) we have lints that forbid these (which I'd like to add to clippy as restriction lints eventually), anddylintalso has lints that look forenv!/option_env!(although perhaps notinclude), which would benefit from this.My experience is that it's pretty annoying to (robustly) check uses of builtin macros without these IME, although that's perhaps just my own fault (e.g. I could be doing it wrong).
At @Nilstrieb's suggestion, I've added a comment that explains why these are here, even though they are not used in the compiler. This is mostly to discourage removal, although it's not a big deal if it happens (I'm certainly not suggesting the presence of these be in any way stable).
In theory this is a library PR (in that it's in library/core), but I'm going to roll compiler because the existence of this or not is much more likely something they care about rather than libs. Hopefully nobody objects to this.
r? compiler