Support for fatal compile_error that suppresses subsequent errors

[joshtriplett]

If a crate includes something like:

#[cfg(not(target_os = "linux"))]
compile_error!("This crate only runs on Linux")

then it isn't helpful for rustc to report that error but then go on to emit many more cascading errors about failed use statements and types that don't exist and similar.

It's especially unhelpful when those additional errors scroll the initial error off the screen.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I think making compile_error always immediately fatal makes sense. Since it's unconditional and only useful in cases like this (I believe?), that should be fine.

[Centril]

That's not the only use case for compile_error!. As the examples show, sometimes you want to error when a specific macro arm is taken which is unsupported. In that case the error shouldn't be fatal. Moreover, when you do emit a fatal error, you don't let other crates compile, which may have errors of their own. So I don't think we should make compile_error! emit fatal errors.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I think it's true that there are cases where it might not necessarily need to be fatal, but I don't know that I'd say that they are common, and that the usability impact of an (unnecessary) fatal error is worse than the impact of emitting a fatal error (and potentially losing others errors as a result).

I am not sure what you mean by "don't let other crates compile" -- to my knowledge, Cargo has no way of knowing whether a fatal error (or a normal error) happened?

If we decide not to pursue a fatal error, we're basically saying that good usage of compile_error for crate-level gating as @joshtriplett is proposing here should look something like this, I think, which while not bad seems much less ergonomic than the "just a fatal error" option.

// lib.rs
#[cfg(not(target_os = "linux"))]
compile_error!("This crate only runs on Linux")

#[cfg(target_os = "linux")]
mod reallib;
#[cfg(target_os = "linux")]
pub use reallib::*;

Of course, an alternative design would be to try to have some heuristic -- e.g., compile_error at the "top level" of macro expansion, modulo cfg gating, would lead to a fatal error, but that seems like a bad idea.

[Centril]

I am not sure what you mean by "don't let other crates compile" -- to my knowledge, Cargo has no way of knowing whether a fatal error (or a normal error) happened?

Hmm; maybe I'm misinformed; I thought a fatal error would prevent Cargo from proceeding to other crates.

Regarding "common" or not, ideally it would be based on some survey. Otherwise it feels like mostly speculation.

Doing #[cfg(...)] mod reallib; like that doesn't seem too onerous, particularly if you use https://crates.io/crates/cfg-if ?

A third design would be to add another macro (why I added the language team).

[joshtriplett]

@Mark-Simulacrum I don't think we should make compile_error! always a fatal error. I would suggest that we introduce a compile_fail! or similar.

[Centril]

I would suggest fatal_error!(...) if we want another macro as it makes the distinction more obvious in the name.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I guess -- maybe a good question to ask: why is making compile_error produce fatal errors a bad thing?. Both of you seem to be against the fatal error, but I'm still not entirely clear why. I think it's true that we're trying to move away from fatal errors in general -- but if the proposal is introducing another macro that would fatal error anyway, it seems like there's not much advantage in making compile_error not error fatally anyway. I would expect that we'd rather avoid two macros that do almost the same thing than make the existing macro uniformly usable (if subpar in some sense in some cases).

[petrochenkov]

FWIW, we could add an extra argument to compile_error:

compile_error!(error, "message"); // Non-fatal error
compile_error!(fatal_error, "message"); // Fatal error
compile_error!(warning, "message"); // Warning
compile_error!("message"); // Sugar for `compile_error!(error, "message")`

(Inspired by CMake, of all things.)

I also think non-fatal is a better default, we've done some significant amount of work making sure that non-fatal errors can be reported without causing a waterfall of follow-up errors in most cases.
We can gather some statistics on the use of compile_error though, to make a data-based decision.

[kaimast]

To add my two cents to this:

The documentation currently states that compile_error! is "the compiler-level form of panic!, but emits an error during compilation rather than at runtime".
I assumed that it would abort compilation just like panic! aborts execution. I think the behavior either needs to be changed as requested or, at least, the documentation needs to be fixed.

Also, what is the current correct way to generate a fatal compile error? Calling compile_error! and then panic!?