Add well known values to --check-cfg implementation
#94362
Merged
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
the
T-compiler
|
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Urgau
force-pushed
the
check-cfg-values
branch
from
8048ec0 to
8cc0669
Compare
petrochenkov
reviewed
Mar 3, 2022
petrochenkov
added
S-waiting-on-author
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I've addressed all review comments and responded to all questions. @rustbot ready |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
petrochenkov
reviewed
Mar 4, 2022
petrochenkov
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
r=me after addressing the last comment #94362 (comment) |
|
I don't have bors permissions to r=you but it's ready. |
|
Error: Parsing shortcut command in comment failed: ...'tbot ready' | error: expected end of command at >| ' but I don'... Please let |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors: r=petrochenkov |
|
📌 Commit 4aa92af has been approved by |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2022
Add well known values to `--check-cfg` implementation This pull-request adds well known values for the well known names via `--check-cfg=values()`. [RFC 3013: Checking conditional compilation at compile time](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3013-conditional-compilation-checking.html#checking-conditional-compilation-at-compile-time) doesn't define this at all, but this seems a nice improvement. The activation is done by a empty `values()` (new syntax) similar to `names()` except that `names(foo)` also activate well known names while `values(aa, "aa", "kk")` would not. As stated this use a different activation logic because well known values for the well known names are not always sufficient. In fact this is problematic for every `target_*` cfg because of non builtin targets, as the current implementation use those built-ins targets to create the list the well known values. The implementation is straight forward, first we gather (if necessary) all the values (lazily or not) and then we apply them. r? ```@petrochenkov```
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2022
Add well known values to `--check-cfg` implementation This pull-request adds well known values for the well known names via `--check-cfg=values()`. [RFC 3013: Checking conditional compilation at compile time](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3013-conditional-compilation-checking.html#checking-conditional-compilation-at-compile-time) doesn't define this at all, but this seems a nice improvement. The activation is done by a empty `values()` (new syntax) similar to `names()` except that `names(foo)` also activate well known names while `values(aa, "aa", "kk")` would not. As stated this use a different activation logic because well known values for the well known names are not always sufficient. In fact this is problematic for every `target_*` cfg because of non builtin targets, as the current implementation use those built-ins targets to create the list the well known values. The implementation is straight forward, first we gather (if necessary) all the values (lazily or not) and then we apply them. r? `@petrochenkov`
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2022
Add well known values to `--check-cfg` implementation This pull-request adds well known values for the well known names via `--check-cfg=values()`. [RFC 3013: Checking conditional compilation at compile time](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3013-conditional-compilation-checking.html#checking-conditional-compilation-at-compile-time) doesn't define this at all, but this seems a nice improvement. The activation is done by a empty `values()` (new syntax) similar to `names()` except that `names(foo)` also activate well known names while `values(aa, "aa", "kk")` would not. As stated this use a different activation logic because well known values for the well known names are not always sufficient. In fact this is problematic for every `target_*` cfg because of non builtin targets, as the current implementation use those built-ins targets to create the list the well known values. The implementation is straight forward, first we gather (if necessary) all the values (lazily or not) and then we apply them. r? ``@petrochenkov``
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2022
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#94362 (Add well known values to `--check-cfg` implementation) - rust-lang#94577 (only disable SIMD for doctests in Miri (not for the stdlib build itself)) - rust-lang#94595 (Fix invalid `unresolved imports` errors for a single-segment import) - rust-lang#94596 (Delay bug in expr adjustment when check_expr is called multiple times) - rust-lang#94618 (Don't round stack size up for created threads in Windows) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 13, 2022
…ark-Simulacrum Enable conditional checking of values in the Rust codebase This pull-request enable conditional checking of (well known) values in the Rust codebase. Well known values were added in rust-lang#94362. All the `target_*` values are taken from all the built-in targets which is why some extra values were needed do be added as they are not (yet ?) defined in any built-in targets. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 21, 2022
…k, r=petrochenkov Update the unstable book with the new `values()` form of check-cfg Forgot to update the unstable book in rust-lang#94362 r? `@petrochenkov`
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 21, 2022
…k, r=petrochenkov Update the unstable book with the new `values()` form of check-cfg Forgot to update the unstable book in rust-lang#94362 r? ``@petrochenkov``
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.
This pull-request adds well known values for the well known names via
--check-cfg=values().RFC 3013: Checking conditional compilation at compile time doesn't define this at all, but this seems a nice improvement.
The activation is done by a empty
values()(new syntax) similar tonames()except thatnames(foo)also activate well known names whilevalues(aa, "aa", "kk")would not.As stated this use a different activation logic because well known values for the well known names are not always sufficient.
In fact this is problematic for every
target_*cfg because of non builtin targets, as the current implementation use those built-ins targets to create the list the well known values.The implementation is straight forward, first we gather (if necessary) all the values (lazily or not) and then we apply them.
r? @petrochenkov