diff options
| author | Matthias Krüger <matthias.krueger@famsik.de> | 2023-11-07 19:29:56 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | GitHub <noreply@github.com> | 2023-11-07 19:29:56 +0100 |
| commit | f8c67704f28f2c6b117c7d164507dd166002fbe8 (patch) | |
| tree | 4f28cb0abc2cbfc3037267d09009de2489d47033 /tests/coverage/assert.rs | |
| parent | cd5b5e08feacb44f3bd0ef5f4828cf02d3539ac8 (diff) | |
| parent | 84abf837b82bdd3a91df0afd4f1debac6b5cc318 (diff) | |
| download | rust-f8c67704f28f2c6b117c7d164507dd166002fbe8.tar.gz rust-f8c67704f28f2c6b117c7d164507dd166002fbe8.zip | |
Rollup merge of #117616 - RalfJung:unstable-target-features, r=compiler-errors
warn when using an unstable feature with -Ctarget-feature Setting or unsetting the wrong target features can cause ABI incompatibility (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116344, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558). We need to carefully audit features for their ABI impact before stabilization. I just learned that we currently accept arbitrary unstable features on stable and if they are in the list of Rust target features, even unstable, then we don't even warn about that!1 That doesn't seem great, so I propose we introduce a warning here. This has an obvious loophole via `-Ctarget-cpu`. I'm not sure how to best deal with that, but it seems better to fix what we can and think about the other cases later, maybe once we have a better idea for how to resolve the general mess that are ABI-affecting target features.
Diffstat (limited to 'tests/coverage/assert.rs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions