Document that -C opt-level=0 implies -C debug-assertions.
#57132
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
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (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 Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed.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. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Hi! Sorry I didn't get to this sooner. @bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 284f0d3 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2019
Document that `-C opt-level=0` implies `-C debug-assertions`. I couldn't find it stated anywhere else (https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/codegen-options/index.html#opt-level). It was a problem before here: rust-lang#39449, it got lost in the migration to the new documentation I assume. On a sidenote: I think that `-C opt-level=0` having a sideeffect on another flag should be changed. Having compiler flags affecting others doesn't make much sense to me, they are used to fine tune anyway. In any case, this plays no role in this PR.
No worries. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2019
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #57107 (Add a regression test for mutating a non-mut #[thread_local]) - #57132 (Document that `-C opt-level=0` implies `-C debug-assertions`.) - #57212 (docs(rustc): Link to the book's source in rustc) - #57302 (Fix unused_assignments false positive) - #57350 (Better error note on unimplemented Index trait for string) - #57635 (use structured macro and path resolve suggestions) - #57650 (librustc_metadata: Pass a default value when unwrapping a span) - #57657 (Add regression test to close #53787) - #57658 (Two HIR tweaks) - #57720 (Fix suggestions given mulitple bad lifetimes) - #57725 (Use structured suggestion to surround struct literal with parenthesis) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I couldn't find it stated anywhere else (https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/codegen-options/index.html#opt-level).
It was a problem before here: #39449, it got lost in the migration to the new documentation I assume.
On a sidenote: I think that
-C opt-level=0having a sideeffect on another flag should be changed. Having compiler flags affecting others doesn't make much sense to me, they are used to fine tune anyway.In any case, this plays no role in this PR.