Remove no_stack_check (#34915)

[abhijeetbhagat]

Part of fixes for #34915

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @brson (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[alexcrichton]

Thanks for the PR! Unfortunately I don't think we can remove this command line option as it's a stable compiler flag right now, so this runs the risk of breaking others' compilations. It may be worth issuing a warning indicating that this doesn't do anything any more, but perhaps for now just the help description could be updated to indicate this?

[brson]

Agree with @alexcrichton, sadly.

[nagisa]

compiler team concluded… kill any compiler flag that exposing a similar thingie.

from #34915 (comment), for a reference.

I guess it could go through a deprecation of some sort, though.

[brson]

Thanks for pointing that out @nagisa. @rust-lang/compiler This PR removes -C no-stack-check but that is a stable flag. Our policy is to not remove them so it's been proposed to make it a no-op. What say you?

[nrc]

Could we at least warn that it is a no-op - silently changing behaviour is bad

[eddyb]

@nrc Nothing actually checks no_stack_check though, there's no behavior to change.

[nrc]

That seems like even more reason to warn the user that they are doing something that is not going to have the effect which they expect.

[brson]

@abhijeetbhagat Can we go ahead and change this patch to instead print out a warning "the --no-stack-check flag is deprecated and does nothing"? Thanks for your patience.

[abhijeetbhagat]

r? @brson

[brson]

@abhijeetbhagat Oh, I see you opened another issue for this. I'll comment on that one.