-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
docs(fingerprint): cargo-rustc extra flags do not affect the metadata #14898
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
The tests were comparing rustc vs RUSTFLAGS which was obscuring the case it was trying to test which was that different remaps shouldn't cause different results.
As the prior test updates show, RUSTFLAGS and extra-flags have the same behavior: they don't affect `-Cextra-filename` or `-Cmetadata`. I also verified this by code inspection. I'm not sure why the table says this.
rustbot
added
A-rebuild-detection
Area: rebuild detection and fingerprinting
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Dec 5, 2024
|
weihanglo
reviewed
Dec 5, 2024
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.
Thanks!
weihanglo
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2024
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.
Thanks!
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
Update cargo 6 commits in 05f54fdc34310f458033af8a63ce1d699fae8bf6..20a443231846b81c7b909691ec3f15eb173f2b18 2024-12-03 03:14:12 +0000 to 2024-12-06 21:56:56 +0000 - fix(fingerprint): Don't throwaway the cache on RUSTFLAGS changes (rust-lang/cargo#14830) - fix(build-rs)!: Remove meaningless 'cargo_cfg_debug_assertions' (rust-lang/cargo#14901) - docs(fingerprint): cargo-rustc extra flags do not affect the metadata (rust-lang/cargo#14898) - fix(add): Don't select yanked versions when normalizing names (rust-lang/cargo#14895) - fix(fix): Migrate workspace dependencies (rust-lang/cargo#14890) - test(build-std): make mock-std closer to real world (rust-lang/cargo#14896)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2024
Update cargo 6 commits in 05f54fdc34310f458033af8a63ce1d699fae8bf6..20a443231846b81c7b909691ec3f15eb173f2b18 2024-12-03 03:14:12 +0000 to 2024-12-06 21:56:56 +0000 - fix(fingerprint): Don't throwaway the cache on RUSTFLAGS changes (rust-lang/cargo#14830) - fix(build-rs)!: Remove meaningless 'cargo_cfg_debug_assertions' (rust-lang/cargo#14901) - docs(fingerprint): cargo-rustc extra flags do not affect the metadata (rust-lang/cargo#14898) - fix(add): Don't select yanked versions when normalizing names (rust-lang/cargo#14895) - fix(fix): Migrate workspace dependencies (rust-lang/cargo#14890) - test(build-std): make mock-std closer to real world (rust-lang/cargo#14896)
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2024
Update cargo 6 commits in 05f54fdc34310f458033af8a63ce1d699fae8bf6..20a443231846b81c7b909691ec3f15eb173f2b18 2024-12-03 03:14:12 +0000 to 2024-12-06 21:56:56 +0000 - fix(fingerprint): Don't throwaway the cache on RUSTFLAGS changes (rust-lang/cargo#14830) - fix(build-rs)!: Remove meaningless 'cargo_cfg_debug_assertions' (rust-lang/cargo#14901) - docs(fingerprint): cargo-rustc extra flags do not affect the metadata (rust-lang/cargo#14898) - fix(add): Don't select yanked versions when normalizing names (rust-lang/cargo#14895) - fix(fix): Migrate workspace dependencies (rust-lang/cargo#14890) - test(build-std): make mock-std closer to real world (rust-lang/cargo#14896)
lnicola
pushed a commit
to lnicola/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2024
Update cargo 6 commits in 05f54fdc34310f458033af8a63ce1d699fae8bf6..20a443231846b81c7b909691ec3f15eb173f2b18 2024-12-03 03:14:12 +0000 to 2024-12-06 21:56:56 +0000 - fix(fingerprint): Don't throwaway the cache on RUSTFLAGS changes (rust-lang/cargo#14830) - fix(build-rs)!: Remove meaningless 'cargo_cfg_debug_assertions' (rust-lang/cargo#14901) - docs(fingerprint): cargo-rustc extra flags do not affect the metadata (rust-lang/cargo#14898) - fix(add): Don't select yanked versions when normalizing names (rust-lang/cargo#14895) - fix(fix): Migrate workspace dependencies (rust-lang/cargo#14890) - test(build-std): make mock-std closer to real world (rust-lang/cargo#14896)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-rebuild-detection
Area: rebuild detection and fingerprinting
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
As the test updates in this PR show, RUSTFLAGS and extra-flags have the same
behavior: they don't affect
-Cextra-filename
or-Cmetadata
.I also verified this by code inspection.
I'm not sure why the table says this.
How should we test and review this PR?
Additional information