-
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
Feature gating *declarations* => new crate rustc_feature
#66895
Conversation
// (name in cfg, feature, function to check if the feature is enabled) | ||
(sym::target_thread_local, sym::cfg_target_thread_local, cfg_fn!(cfg_target_thread_local)), | ||
(sym::target_has_atomic, sym::cfg_target_has_atomic, cfg_fn!(cfg_target_has_atomic)), | ||
(sym::target_has_atomic_load_store, sym::cfg_target_has_atomic, cfg_fn!(cfg_target_has_atomic)), | ||
]; | ||
|
||
#[derive(Debug)] | ||
pub struct GatedCfg { |
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.
why move away from a struct with field names to a tuple?
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.
If you look above, the constant contains the tuples already -- I'm introducing a type alias for that. The struct GatedCfg
with span
and index
was actively harmful; imo it became clearly cleaner using .find(...)
instead. Ostensibly we could store the constant as a list of structs instead, but it doesn't seem worth it given the number of times the type is referenced and used?
38256d8
to
ded177a
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit ded177a has been approved by |
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 1000, this pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened |
Feature gating *declarations* => new crate `rustc_feature` This PR moves the data-oriented parts of feature gating into its own crate, `rustc_feature`. The parts consist of some data types as well as `accepted`, `active`, `removed`, and `builtin_attrs`. Feature gate checking itself remains in `syntax::feature_gate::check`. The parts which define how to emit feature gate errors could probably be moved to `rustc_errors` or to the new `rustc_session` crate introduced in rust-lang#66878. The visitor itself could probably be moved as a pass in `rustc_passes` depending on how the dependency edges work out. The PR also contains some drive-by cleanup of feature gate checking. As such, the PR probably best read commit-by-commit. r? @oli-obk cc @petrochenkov cc @Mark-Simulacrum
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #66612 (Initial implementation of or-pattern usefulness checking) - #66705 (Atomic as_mut_ptr) - #66759 (impl TrustedLen for vec::Drain) - #66858 (Use LLVMAddAnalysisPasses instead of Rust's wrapper) - #66870 (SimplifyArmIdentity only for locals with the same type) - #66883 (rustc_typeck: gate AnonConst's generics on feature(const_generics).) - #66889 (Make python-generated source files compatible with rustfmt) - #66894 (Remove unneeded prelude imports in libcore tests) - #66895 (Feature gating *declarations* => new crate `rustc_feature`) Failed merges: - #66905 (rustc_plugin: Remove some remaining plugin features) r? @ghost
This PR moves the data-oriented parts of feature gating into its own crate,
rustc_feature
.The parts consist of some data types as well as
accepted
,active
,removed
, andbuiltin_attrs
.Feature gate checking itself remains in
syntax::feature_gate::check
. The parts which define how to emit feature gate errors could probably be moved torustc_errors
or to the newrustc_session
crate introduced in #66878. The visitor itself could probably be moved as a pass inrustc_passes
depending on how the dependency edges work out.The PR also contains some drive-by cleanup of feature gate checking. As such, the PR probably best read commit-by-commit.
r? @oli-obk
cc @petrochenkov
cc @Mark-Simulacrum