-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
rustdoc: port the -C option from rustc #49956
Merged
Merged
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
r? @frewsxcv (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
Apr 13, 2018
Though, since it's blocked on the other PR, please review that first! |
QuietMisdreavus
added
S-blocked
Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Apr 13, 2018
QuietMisdreavus
changed the title
Rustdoc codegen
rustdoc: port the -C option from rustc
Apr 13, 2018
There are docs and tests. Amazing! Thanks! @bors: r+ |
📌 Commit a5456bd has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-blocked
Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work.
labels
Apr 14, 2018
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2018
rustdoc: port the -C option from rustc Blocked on #49864. The included test won't work without those changes, so this PR includes those commits as well. When documenting items that require certain target features, it helps to be able to force those target features into existence. Rather than include a flag just to parse those features, i instead decided to port the `-C` flag from rustc in its entirety. It takes the same parameters, because it runs through the same parsing function. This has the added benefit of being able to control the codegen of doctests as well. One concern i have with the flag is that i set it to stable here. My rationale is that it is a direct port of functionality on rustc that is currently stable, used only in mechanisms that it is originally used for. If needed, i can set it back to be unstable.
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
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.
Blocked on #49864. The included test won't work without those changes, so this PR includes those commits as well.
When documenting items that require certain target features, it helps to be able to force those target features into existence. Rather than include a flag just to parse those features, i instead decided to port the
-C
flag from rustc in its entirety. It takes the same parameters, because it runs through the same parsing function. This has the added benefit of being able to control the codegen of doctests as well.One concern i have with the flag is that i set it to stable here. My rationale is that it is a direct port of functionality on rustc that is currently stable, used only in mechanisms that it is originally used for. If needed, i can set it back to be unstable.