Stabilize cfg_boolean_literals

[clubby789]

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, 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.

Summarize existing test coverage of this feature

• Basic usage, including #[cfg()], cfg!() and #[cfg_attr()]
• --cfg=true/false on the command line being accessible via r#true/r#false
• Interaction with the unstable #[doc(cfg(..))] feature
• Denying --check-cfg=cfg(true/false)
• 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.

[rustbot]

r? @davidtwco

rustbot has assigned @davidtwco.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

rust-analyzer is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-analyzer instead.

cc @rust-lang/rust-analyzer

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann

[traviscross]

@clubby789: If you could, please link in the stabilization report to each test that we would want to see to review the behavior of this feature and the edges of it, and describe what each is intended to demonstrate if that's not already included as a comment in the test itself.

[clubby789]

Added a couple of new tests with the edge cases described, and descriptions of the test coverage to the report

[tmandry]

@rfcbot fcp merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @tmandry has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @scottmcm
• @tmandry
• @traviscross

Concerns:

• question-on-check-cfg resolved by Stabilize cfg_boolean_literals #138632 (comment)

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!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[traviscross]

In testing, I notice that this works, as expected:

//@ check-pass
//@ compile-flags: --cfg r#false --check-cfg=cfg(r#false)
fn main() {
    #[cfg(not(r#false))]
    compile_error!("");
}

And this works:

//@ check-pass
//@ compile-flags: --cfg false --check-cfg=cfg(r#false)
fn main() {
    #[cfg(not(r#false))]
    compile_error!("");
}

But that this doesn't work:

//@ check-pass
//@ compile-flags: --cfg false --check-cfg=cfg(false)
fn main() {
    #[cfg(not(r#false))]
    compile_error!("");
}

What's the reason that it's OK for --check-cfg to require r#false when it's not for --cfg?

[traviscross]

@rfcbot concern question-on-check-cfg
@rfcbot reviewed

[joshtriplett]

We should definitely ensure that --cfg and --check-cfg accept the same things, consistently.

We may wish to add a warning when you apply either of those to a keyword, since in code that would need to be matched with r#, and it would be clearer if the command-line likewise used the r# syntax.

(None of these should ever affect the behavior of cfg(false) or cfg(true), only cfg(r#false) and cfg(r#true).)

[traviscross]

We discussed this today in the lang triage meeting. We believe this test should pass, exactly as it does for cfg(r#while):

//@ check-pass
//@ revisions: r0x0 r0x1 r1x0 r1x1
//@[r0x0] compile-flags: --cfg false --check-cfg=cfg(false)
//@[r0x1] compile-flags: --cfg false --check-cfg=cfg(r#false)
//@[r1x0] compile-flags: --cfg r#false --check-cfg=cfg(false)
//@[r1x1] compile-flags: --cfg r#false --check-cfg=cfg(r#false)
#![deny(unexpected_cfgs)]
fn main() {
    #[cfg(not(r#false))]
    compile_error!("");
}

Please add a test to this effect.

[Urgau]

What's the reason that it's OK for --check-cfg to require r#false when it's not for --cfg?

In --cfg false, r#false is the path of the MetaItem.

While in --check-cfg cfg(false), false is the boolean literal false.

And since a path can be a identifier --cfg false becomes r#false, while false is a literal, which can't be an identifier.

[traviscross]

@Urgau: Do you think that false, as a literal, should be treated differently than non-literal keywords like while in this regard? I could maybe see a case for that.

[Urgau]

I think we could justify the boolean literals being treated differently and accept them in --check-cfg on the basis of consistency with --cfg.

while and other keywords are also an interesting case, we do accept them without raw-ness in --cfg while and --check-cfg cfg(while) but we only accept them with raw in the attribute #[cfg(r#while)].

We could try to be more consistent in --cfg and --check-cfg by only accepting the same form that will be accepted in the attribute, so only accept r#false and r#while in --cfg and --check-cfg, that would make them consistent with the #[cfg] attribute.

[traviscross]

Yes. Since we already accept while in both --cfg and --check-cfg, it still sounds right then to do the same for true and false. If we ever decide to tighten that up for other keywords over an edition, we'd handle then for this as well.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #139137) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rfcbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

This will be merged soon.

[traviscross]

On review, everything looks right to me at this point, so let's...

@bors r=davidtwco,Urgau,traviscross rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 303c1b4 has been approved by davidtwco,Urgau,traviscross

It is now in the queue for this repository.