-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Stabilize --extern flag without a path. #64882
Conversation
@@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ all: | |||
$(RUSTC) bar.rs --crate-type=rlib |
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.
Is this the only test?
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.
extern-flag-fun
is not actually testing this feature. It is a 5-year old test from when --extern
was first added. The removed --extern hello
line was originally there to verify that it would error due to the missing path. When pathless --extern
was added, the error changed to "missing -Z unstable-options". With this PR, the hello
line no longer fails (and thus breaks the test), due to -L
flags injected by the makefile. I figured it no longer fit the spirit of the test.
I have added some tests.
|
||
* `CRATENAME=PATH` — Indicates the given crate is found at the given path. | ||
* `CRATENAME` — Indicates the given crate may be found in the search path, | ||
such as within the sysroot or via the `-L` flag. |
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.
Do we have tests ensuring that sysroot crates, e.g. private rustc details emit an error when used on a stable compiler? (Also when an explicit path is used to them, not just a search.)
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.
What happens if both --extern CRATENAME=PATH
and --extern CRATENAME
are specified for the same CRATENAME
? It would be nice to document that.
AFAIR, multiple --extern CRATENAME=PATH
s with the same CRATENAME
are possible if they lead to different kinds of libraries, like rlib
and dylib
.
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.
There are about 30 tests doing various things with pathless --extern
(search for // compile-flags:.*--extern
).
I have added some more specific tests:
run-make-fulldeps/extern-flag-pathless
: Shows what happens when you mix pathless with path--extern
flags. Also demonstrates the preference of rlib over dylib.ui-fulldeps/pathless-extern-unstable.rs
: Shows--extern rustc
is not allowed.ui/pathless-extern-ok.rs
: Basic test for a sysroot crate.
I don't have a good intuition of how sophisticated rustc tests should be. They are also a bit disorganized, so I didn't know where to stick them, or which style would be preferred. I think the dylib tests should be safe from a cross platform standpoint (I believe they only run on Linux?).
I updated the documentation with some more detail. I never really know how detailed rustc docs should be. I intentionally left the prefer-dynamic algorithm vague. It is described somewhat in src/librustc_metadata/dependency_format.rs
. I figure since it is complex, and possibly subject to change, it may not be worthwhile. I can add more or remove some if desired.
We discussed this in the lang team meeting. In general, we are comfortable with stabilizing this feature. We would like some more commentary from other people with more knowledge of build systems, the sysroot, etc (lang team members with more relevant experience here weren't available today), mainly about what possible hazards there could be with this feature. In terms of the larger goal this is trying to solve (eliminating the remaining use cases for However, it's not clear if this will be a step to solving the no_std and test problems, which have some important differences (most importantly, currently there's no clear way the need for these crates is marked in the toml). We think a full RFC process would be necessary to figure out the interface to access these crates without using |
Absolutely. That is the intent of rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware#5 to produce an RFC with the necessary |
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ | |||
// edition:2018 | |||
// compile-flags:--extern alloc |
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.
Is this achieved by whitelist?
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.
In a sense, yes. The crate must be marked with #![stable]
, otherwise the -Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked
makes it unstable.
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.
Ah... so just for my education, what happens if -Z force-unstable-if-unmarked
isn't there? (And it cannot be there on stable when you are not using cargo since it's a -Z
flag?)
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.
It will successfully link whatever library is in the given path. That library will be added to the extern prelude with the identifier "alloc".
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.
Isn't that a problem then if you are not using cargo since it would allow you to use unstable stuff on stable? I'm rather surprised that -Z force-unstable-if-unmarked
isn't the default and that you need a flag to opt-out for sysroot crates.
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.
Sorry, I'm not understanding the question.
On stable rustc
, you cannot access any crates that are marked "unstable". Either from --extern foo
or --extern foo=path/to/sysroot/libfoo.rlib
or extern crate foo;
or -L path/to/unstable/crates
.
On nightly, you can include the attribute #![feature(rustc_private)]
to override this check.
All of the sysroot crates are built with the -Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked
flag.
The opt-in nature is just saying #![stable]
crates are OK to access, even with the -Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked
flag (that is the "if unmarked" part). I believe the only crates marked stable are core, std, alloc, and proc_macro.
In theory, anyone can compile any crate using unstable features using nightly, and then load those crates from stable. In practice, you can't (due to rustc version checking) or clearly something you shouldn't do (like set RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP
env var).
Can you say more how you think that can be circumvented?
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.
All of the sysroot crates are built with the
-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked
flag.
Oh! -- I missed this part. I thought you meant that when the sysroot crate is used, unless there is a -Zforce...
, then it won't be gated... but I see now that this is about when the crate is built, not used. Now it clicks. Maybe this conversation should be distilled into the rustc guide?
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.
As a note, one reason I think we have not been enthusiastic on this is for the primary use case - core, alloc - there's a lot of good reason to deprecate these crates and move to a system that works more like feature flags on a single crate (so we can add impls without orphan issues, for example). However, this is a big and complicated refactor of the standard library and no one is driving it. |
c6ad892
to
6ba1de4
Compare
@rfcbot fcp merge Dear compiler team, I propose that we merge this PR. It adds a |
Team member @nikomatsakis has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
I just realized that this does not support crate renaming (the equivalent of
It looks like it would be relatively easy to add. I'm curious what anyone else thinks. I'd also like to hear if anyone would have any ideas on the cli syntax. I think I'd like to lean towards 1 or 2, as I think it would be an odd wart not to support it. And if others agree, maybe waiting would be prudent? |
The semantics are clear
we only need to review the syntactic space so that |
such as within the sysroot or via the `-L` flag. | ||
|
||
The same crate name may be specified multiple times for different crate types. | ||
For loading metadata, `rlib` takes precedence over `rmeta`, which takes |
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.
Do we want to guarantee that? Does any tools rely on that? (The "rlib ->rmeta -> dylib" order for metadata.)
Hypothetically, what if we want to change it to "rmeta -> rlib -> dylib"?
rmeta is smaller, easier to obtain, perhaps faster to read, etc - same reasons why rlib is preferred to dylib, basically. Perhaps we can exploit that somehow.
Then maybe it better stay unspecified in that case?
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.
Sounds good, I have removed it. I am not aware of any tools relying on that behavior, and I think it would be a little strange to do so.
6ba1de4
to
098ffd9
Compare
Ping from triage: |
I'm not familiar with any of this code; can someone else review it? |
Ping @Zoxc @michaelwoerister, and @nagisa. r? @eddyb or maybe @petrochenkov |
^-- Failed in #66185 (comment), @bors r- |
Please fix the id duplicate then it can get r+ again. @bors: r- |
Add ERROR Co-Authored-By: Mazdak Farrokhzad <twingoow@gmail.com>
098ffd9
to
ee459c6
Compare
@bors r=eddyb Strange that github/bors did not have a merge conflict, since I got one locally. |
📌 Commit ee459c6 has been approved by |
Stabilize --extern flag without a path. This stabilizes the `--extern` flag without a path, implemented in #54116. This flag is used to add a crate that may be found in the search path to the extern prelude. The intent of stabilizing this now is to change Cargo to emit this flag for `proc_macro` when building a proc-macro crate. This will allow the ability to elide `extern crate proc_macro;` for proc-macros, one of the few places where it is still necessary. It is intended that Cargo may also use this flag for other cases in the future as part of the [std-aware work](https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/). There will likely be some kind of syntax where users may declare dependencies on other crates (such as `alloc`), and Cargo will use this flag so that they may be used like any other crate. At this time there are no short-term plans to use it for anything other than proc-macro. This will not help for non-proc-macro crates that use `proc_macro`, which I believe is not too common? An alternate approach for proc-macro is to use the `meta` crate, but from my inquiries there doesn't appear to be anyone interested in pushing that forward. The `meta` crate also doesn't help with things like `alloc` or `test`. cc #57288
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Tested on commit rust-lang/rust@d257440. Direct link to PR: <rust-lang/rust#64882> 💔 rls on linux: test-pass → test-fail (cc @Xanewok, @rust-lang/infra).
Add proc_macro to the extern prelude. This makes it so that a proc-macro library can use the `proc_macro` crate without the `extern crate proc_macro;` item on the 2018 edition. This is the Cargo half of rust-lang/rust#64882.
Version 1.41.0 (2020-01-30) =========================== Language -------- - [You can now pass type parameters to foreign items when implementing traits.][65879] E.g. You can now write `impl<T> From<Foo> for Vec<T> {}`. - [You can now arbitrarily nest receiver types in the `self` position.][64325] E.g. you can now write `fn foo(self: Box<Box<Self>>) {}`. Previously only `Self`, `&Self`, `&mut Self`, `Arc<Self>`, `Rc<Self>`, and `Box<Self>` were allowed. - [You can now use any valid identifier in a `format_args` macro.][66847] Previously identifiers starting with an underscore were not allowed. - [Visibility modifiers (e.g. `pub`) are now syntactically allowed on trait items and enum variants.][66183] These are still rejected semantically, but can be seen and parsed by procedural macros and conditional compilation. Compiler -------- - [Rustc will now warn if you have unused loop `'label`s.][66325] - [Removed support for the `i686-unknown-dragonfly` target.][67255] - [Added tier 3 support\* for the `riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu` target.][66661] - [You can now pass an arguments file passing the `@path` syntax to rustc.][66172] Note that the format differs somewhat from what is found in other tooling; please see [the documentation][argfile-docs] for more information. - [You can now provide `--extern` flag without a path, indicating that it is available from the search path or specified with an `-L` flag.][64882] \* Refer to Rust's [platform support page][forge-platform-support] for more information on Rust's tiered platform support. [argfile-docs]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/command-line-arguments.html#path-load-command-line-flags-from-a-path Libraries --------- - [The `core::panic` module is now stable.][66771] It was already stable through `std`. - [`NonZero*` numerics now implement `From<NonZero*>` if it's a smaller integer width.][66277] E.g. `NonZeroU16` now implements `From<NonZeroU8>`. - [`MaybeUninit<T>` now implements `fmt::Debug`.][65013] Stabilized APIs --------------- - [`Result::map_or`] - [`Result::map_or_else`] - [`std::rc::Weak::weak_count`] - [`std::rc::Weak::strong_count`] - [`std::sync::Weak::weak_count`] - [`std::sync::Weak::strong_count`] Cargo ----- - [Cargo will now document all the private items for binary crates by default.][cargo/7593] - [`cargo-install` will now reinstall the package if it detects that it is out of date.][cargo/7560] - [Cargo.lock now uses a more git friendly format that should help to reduce merge conflicts.][cargo/7579] - [You can now override specific dependencies's build settings][cargo/7591] E.g. `[profile.dev.overrides.image] opt-level = 2` sets the `image` crate's optimisation level to `2` for debug builds. You can also use `[profile.<profile>.build_overrides]` to override build scripts and their dependencies. Misc ---- - [You can now specify `edition` in documentation code blocks to compile the block for that edition.][66238] E.g. `edition2018` tells rustdoc that the code sample should be compiled the 2018 edition of Rust. - [You can now provide custom themes to rustdoc with `--theme`, and check the current theme with `--check-theme`.][54733] - [You can use `#[cfg(doc)]` to compile an item when building documentation.][61351] Compatibility Notes ------------------- - [As previously announced 1.41.0 will be the last tier 1 release for 32-bit Apple targets.][apple-32bit-drop] This means that the source code is still available to build, but the targets are no longer being tested and release binaries for those platforms will no longer be distributed by the Rust project. Please refer to the linked blog post for more information. [54733]: rust-lang/rust#54733 [61351]: rust-lang/rust#61351 [67255]: rust-lang/rust#67255 [66661]: rust-lang/rust#66661 [66771]: rust-lang/rust#66771 [66847]: rust-lang/rust#66847 [66238]: rust-lang/rust#66238 [66277]: rust-lang/rust#66277 [66325]: rust-lang/rust#66325 [66172]: rust-lang/rust#66172 [66183]: rust-lang/rust#66183 [65879]: rust-lang/rust#65879 [65013]: rust-lang/rust#65013 [64882]: rust-lang/rust#64882 [64325]: rust-lang/rust#64325 [cargo/7560]: rust-lang/cargo#7560 [cargo/7579]: rust-lang/cargo#7579 [cargo/7591]: rust-lang/cargo#7591 [cargo/7593]: rust-lang/cargo#7593 [`Result::map_or_else`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/result/enum.Result.html#method.map_or_else [`Result::map_or`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/result/enum.Result.html#method.map_or [`std::rc::Weak::weak_count`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/rc/struct.Weak.html#method.weak_count [`std::rc::Weak::strong_count`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/rc/struct.Weak.html#method.strong_count [`std::sync::Weak::weak_count`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Weak.html#method.weak_count [`std::sync::Weak::strong_count`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.Weak.html#method.strong_count [apple-32bit-drop]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/01/03/reducing-support-for-32-bit-apple-targets.html
This stabilizes the
--extern
flag without a path, implemented in #54116.This flag is used to add a crate that may be found in the search path to the extern prelude. The intent of stabilizing this now is to change Cargo to emit this flag for
proc_macro
when building a proc-macro crate. This will allow the ability to elideextern crate proc_macro;
for proc-macros, one of the few places where it is still necessary.It is intended that Cargo may also use this flag for other cases in the future as part of the std-aware work. There will likely be some kind of syntax where users may declare dependencies on other crates (such as
alloc
), and Cargo will use this flag so that they may be used like any other crate. At this time there are no short-term plans to use it for anything other than proc-macro.This will not help for non-proc-macro crates that use
proc_macro
, which I believe is not too common?An alternate approach for proc-macro is to use the
meta
crate, but from my inquiries there doesn't appear to be anyone interested in pushing that forward. Themeta
crate also doesn't help with things likealloc
ortest
.cc #57288