Skip to content
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

cargo does not show the build script output when build fails due during linking #1899

Closed
briansmith opened this issue Aug 12, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@briansmith
Copy link

When the build fails because linking failed then the build script's output isn't shown like it is when the build script fails.

Based on the conversation in #1106, the build script output is always supposed to be shown when the build fails. This is especially important when one is debugging a remote build (Travis, AppVeyor, etc.) where it is hard to retrieve the output file.

@briansmith
Copy link
Author

By the way, the platform I tested this on is Windows using Rust Nightly. I don't know if it is a problem on other platforms.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

I don't think this something that Cargo should necessarily do as it seems pretty hairy:

  • First, Cargo would have to parse the output of the compiler to determine whether a link error happened or not.
  • If this happened, then Cargo needs to go back in time and print out all the build script outputs that were transitive dependencies (many of which probably aren't relevant)
  • There's probably lots more build scripts than one may expect which need to be dealt with, and wading through the output can be quite confusing.

Overall I think it'd make more sense to just have an option to not suppress the output of the build script, e.g. #1106, so I'm going to close in favor of that. I definitely sympathize with the motivation here though (debugging appveyor/travis), but adding a flag (like --verbose) for a temporary build should be easy enough to add and see what's going on.

@briansmith
Copy link
Author

I agree that #1106 makes sense. I filed this because people objected to implementing #1106.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants