-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
[WIP] Require specific feature names in #[allow_internal_unstable]
.
#54714
Conversation
r? @pnkfelix (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@bors try |
[WIP] Require specific feature names in `#[allow_internal_unstable]`. I opened this with just a hacky commit to test the perf impact of one implementation strategy.
☀️ Test successful - status-travis |
@rust-timer build 389686a |
Success: Queued 389686a with parent f55129d, comparison URL. |
We either don't have expansion stress tests... or I'm good to go. |
@eddyb what is the next step here? Can you link this back to the relevant bug that sparked this investigation? |
+1, I'm mildly skeptical about this, why isn't a boolean flag enough? |
Ping from triage @eddyb: It looks like some clarifications have been requested for this PR. |
Ping from triage @eddyb: What are your plans for this PR? |
Ping from triage, @eddyb! This PR hasn't seen any updates in a while, so I'm closing it for now, per our guidelines. Thanks for your contributions and please feel free to re-open in the future. |
The investigation was actually flawed, we'd need to also support library features, and those aren't a finite set, so they'd have to use The problem I was considering solving, if at all possible efficiently, is that currently
In general, we might be accidentally allowing too much, and I wanted to limit that. |
I opened this with just a hacky commit to test the perf impact of one implementation strategy.