Conversation
src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we even have an entry in the unstable-book? If yes, apply this comment, if no, we should probably document it together with stabilization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we even have an entry in the unstable-book?
Yes.
If yes, apply this comment
I asked in the PR description where the documentation should be moved to as there are a few options (reference, book, RBE, etc.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have assumed to add it to the book, because that would have been where I'd have searched for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@steveklabnik thinks otherwise (cf. #51366 (comment) and #51366 (comment)). I'll prep a PR to add documentation to the reference and the nomicon.
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
r? @oli-obk |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #51448) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
Can someone explain to me why this can only be applied to static items? It would be useful for exporting "unused" |
A few reasons:
extern "C" fn keep_this() {}
#[used]
static KEEP: extern "C" fn() = keep_this; |
|
Documentation PRs: rust-lang/reference#361 and rust-lang/nomicon#74 |
We had been using `#[no_mangle]` which is a workaround to ensure that the compiler doesn't drop important symbols. `#[used]` is designed explicitly for this purpose. rust-lang/rust#51363
|
Now that the docs PRs are sent should we start the FCP process? cc @rust-lang/lang |
|
Wasn't the name quite controversial? Are we going with |
|
@eddyb we accepted an RFC to stabilize with that name after a lot of bikeshed, so I'd say yes :) |
|
Ah, I see, rust-lang/rfcs#2386 (comment). That's sad but I won't block the stabilization (#40289). |
src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be changed to 1.29.0 before merging.
|
@eddyb Hah :P You even ticked your own box on the RFC ;) |
|
@Centril I ticked my box during the discussion about the name, which I was hoping would result in a better alternative being chosen. Acceptance of the RFC, with |
We had been using `#[no_mangle]` which is a workaround to ensure that the compiler doesn't drop important symbols. `#[used]` is designed explicitly for this purpose. rust-lang/rust#51363
|
Ping from triage, @oli-obk / @rust-lang/lang: IIUC, this PR is waiting for one of you to trigger an FCP. |
|
@TimNN |
|
To clear the PR queue, I'm going to close this until the FCP period is over. |
|
FCP period is now over. @japaric can you resolve the conflicts / rebase? =P |
it'll be documented in the reference
|
@Centril I have rebased the PR. I have also pushed a commit that removes the chapter from the unstable book since there is a PR to document this in the reference (which I still need to update). |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs
Outdated
| (accepted, attr_literals, "1.30.0", Some(34981), None), | ||
| (accepted, panic_handler, "1.30.0", Some(44489), None), | ||
| // Used to preserve symbols (see llvm.used) | ||
| (accepted, used, "1.29.0", Some(40289), None), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Time flies, this should be 1.30.0 now (or 1.31.0 if it can't be merged this week).
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit d37658a has been approved by |
stabilize #[used] closes #40289 RFC for stabilization: rust-lang/rfcs#2386 r? @Centril Where should this be documented? Currently the documentation is in the unstable book
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
closes #40289
RFC for stabilization: rust-lang/rfcs#2386
r? @Centril
Where should this be documented? Currently the documentation is in the unstable book