-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates #131034
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
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Urgau
commented
Sep 29, 2024
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs cc @camelid |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
bcc6f65
to
85e872a
Compare
jieyouxu
reviewed
Sep 30, 2024
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
c17dd7b
to
10dbf46
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
10dbf46
to
3db7704
Compare
nnethercote
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
nnethercote
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/error_reporting/traits/on_unimplemented.rs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
nnethercote
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
nnethercote
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
nnethercote
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
src/doc/unstable-book/src/language-features/cfg-boolean-literals.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
nnethercote
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
Basically looks good, a few comments above. |
Thanks! @bors r+ |
This was referenced Oct 3, 2024
Added the tracking issue. CI passes. Let's go. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2024
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates This PR implements rust-lang/rfcs#3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`. r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)* cc `@clubby789`
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2024
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#131034 (Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates) - rust-lang#131202 (Use wide pointers consistenly across the compiler) - rust-lang#131230 (Enable `--no-sandbox` option by default for rustdoc GUI tests) - rust-lang#131232 (Week off of reviews to focus on docs) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131034 - Urgau:cfg-true-false, r=nnethercote Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates This PR implements rust-lang/rfcs#3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`. r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)* cc `@clubby789`
Closed
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2025
…t, r=davidtwco,Urgau,traviscross Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals` Closes rust-lang#131204 `@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated This will end up conflicting with the test in rust-lang#138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating -- # Stabilization Report ## General design ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? [RFC 3695](rust-lang/rfcs#3695), none. ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. None ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? None ## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? Yes; only positive feedback was received. ## Implementation quality ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) Implemented in [rust-lang#131034](rust-lang#131034). ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature - [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs) - [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs) - [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs) - [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs) - Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs` - Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs` ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature. ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization - `@clubby789` (RFC) - `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc) ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? `rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized. ## Type system and execution rules ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#138632 - clubby789:stabilize-cfg-boolean-lit, r=davidtwco,Urgau,traviscross Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals` Closes rust-lang#131204 `@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated This will end up conflicting with the test in rust-lang#138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating -- # Stabilization Report ## General design ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? [RFC 3695](rust-lang/rfcs#3695), none. ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. None ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? None ## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? Yes; only positive feedback was received. ## Implementation quality ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) Implemented in [rust-lang#131034](rust-lang#131034). ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature - [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs) - [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs) - [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs) - [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs) - Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs` - Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs` ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature. ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization - `@clubby789` (RFC) - `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc) ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? `rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized. ## Type system and execution rules ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2025
…dtwco,Urgau,traviscross Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals` Closes #131204 `@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating -- # Stabilization Report ## General design ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? [RFC 3695](rust-lang/rfcs#3695), none. ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. None ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? None ## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? Yes; only positive feedback was received. ## Implementation quality ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) Implemented in [#131034](rust-lang/rust#131034). ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature - [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs) - [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs) - [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs) - [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs) - Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs` - Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs` ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature. ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? None ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization - `@clubby789` (RFC) - `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc) ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? `rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized. ## Type system and execution rules ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
CI-spurious-fail-msvc
CI spurious failure: target env msvc
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
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.
This PR implements rust-lang/rfcs#3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e.
cfg(true)
andcfg(false)
.r? @nnethercote (or anyone with parser knowledge)
cc @clubby789