Remove deprecated --check-cfg names() and values() syntax

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 67 deletions

diff --git a/src/doc/unstable-book/src/compiler-flags/check-cfg.md b/src/doc/unstable-book/src/compiler-flags/check-cfg.md
index bcfab790478..a5b9169c9f3 100644
--- a/src/doc/unstable-book/src/compiler-flags/check-cfg.md
+++ b/src/doc/unstable-book/src/compiler-flags/check-cfg.md
@@ -190,70 +190,3 @@ fn shoot_lasers() {}
                             // the cfg(feature) list
 fn write_shakespeare() {}
 ```
-
-## The deprecated `names(...)` form
-
-The `names(...)` form enables checking the names. This form uses a named list:
-
-```bash
-rustc --check-cfg 'names(name1, name2, ... nameN)'
-```
-
-where each `name` is a bare identifier (has no quotes). The order of the names is not significant.
-
-If `--check-cfg names(...)` is specified at least once, then `rustc` will check all references to
-condition names. `rustc` will check every `#[cfg]` attribute, `#[cfg_attr]` attribute, `cfg` clause
-inside `#[link]` attribute and `cfg!(...)` call against the provided list of expected condition
-names. If a name is not present in this list, then `rustc` will report an `unexpected_cfgs` lint
-diagnostic. The default diagnostic level for this lint is `Warn`.
-
-If `--check-cfg names(...)` is not specified, then `rustc` will not check references to condition
-names.
-
-`--check-cfg names(...)` may be specified more than once. The result is that the list of valid
-condition names is merged across all options. It is legal for a condition name to be specified
-more than once; redundantly specifying a condition name has no effect.
-
-To enable checking condition names with an empty set of valid condition names, use the following
-form. The parentheses are required.
-
-```bash
-rustc --check-cfg 'names()'
-```
-
-Note that `--check-cfg 'names()'` is _not_ equivalent to omitting the option entirely.
-The first form enables checking condition names, while specifying that there are no valid
-condition names (outside of the set of well-known names defined by `rustc`). Omitting the
-`--check-cfg 'names(...)'` option does not enable checking condition names.
-
-## The deprecated `values(...)` form
-
-The `values(...)` form enables checking the values within list-valued conditions. It has this
-form:
-
-```bash
-rustc --check-cfg `values(name, "value1", "value2", ... "valueN")'
-```
-
-where `name` is a bare identifier (has no quotes) and each `"value"` term is a quoted literal
-string. `name` specifies the name of the condition, such as `feature` or `target_os`.
-
-When the `values(...)` option is specified, `rustc` will check every `#[cfg(name = "value")]`
-attribute, `#[cfg_attr(name = "value")]` attribute, `#[link(name = "a", cfg(name = "value"))]`
-and `cfg!(name = "value")` call. It will check that the `"value"` specified is present in the
-list of expected values. If `"value"` is not in it, then `rustc` will report an `unexpected_cfgs`
-lint diagnostic. The default diagnostic level for this lint is `Warn`.
-
-To enable checking of values, but to provide an empty set of valid values, use this form:
-
-```bash
-rustc --check-cfg `values(name)`
-```
-
-The `--check-cfg values(...)` option can be repeated, both for the same condition name and for
-different names. If it is repeated for the same condition name, then the sets of values for that
-condition are merged together.
-
-If `values()` is specified, then `rustc` will enable the checking of well-known values defined
-by itself. Note that it's necessary to specify the `values()` form to enable the checking of
-well known values, specifying the other forms doesn't implicitly enable it.