-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
rustc: Add a new -Z force-unstable-if-unmarked
flag
#41847
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -1027,6 +1027,8 @@ options! {DebuggingOptions, DebuggingSetter, basic_debugging_options, | |
"add a source pattern to the file path remapping config"), | ||
remap_path_prefix_to: Vec<String> = (vec![], parse_string_push, [TRACKED], | ||
"add a mapping target to the file path remapping config"), | ||
force_unstable_if_unmarked: bool = (false, parse_bool, [TRACKED], | ||
"force all crates to be `rustc_private` unstable"), | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Could the `rustc_private be provided from rustbuild instead if being hardcoded? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We could, yeah, but I'm not sure it'd buy much? We otherwise would still hardcode the issue number as well as the description of the unstable feature (the "note"), and passing all that info as CLI flags may not also be worth it :(. Do you think we'll want different unstable features on differnet crates though? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's more that the flag name doesn't seem specific to There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Heh we could also call it |
||
} | ||
|
||
pub fn default_lib_output() -> CrateType { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aah this is what I didn't consider refactoring - it's much nicer!