Reducing target_feature check-cfg merge conflicts#133710
Reducing target_feature check-cfg merge conflicts#133710bors merged 3 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
target_feature check-cfg merge conflicts#133710Conversation
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest cc @jieyouxu |
|
Thanks, that helps a lot! I am still not convinced that we should have But either way, landing this PR will improve things significantly. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I have some questions.
I am still not convinced that we should have
tests/ui/check-cfg/target_feature.stderrin this form. This will still cause a test failure pretty much any time someone adds a new target feature, since people won't expect they have to bless an existing test for that. We (as in, the compiler team) should at least keep an eye on that situation.
I agree that sounds not ideal, maybe we can see if we can adjust the test or the diagnostics, or both.
163e56b to
9086d34
Compare
9086d34 to
43bed16
Compare
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#131713 (Stabilize `const_maybe_uninit_write`) - rust-lang#133535 (show forbidden_lint_groups in future-compat reports) - rust-lang#133610 (Move `Const::{from_anon_const,try_from_lit}` to hir_ty_lowering) - rust-lang#133701 (Use c"lit" for CStrings without unwrap) - rust-lang#133704 (fix ICE when promoted has layout size overflow) - rust-lang#133705 (add "profiler" and "optimized-compiler-builtins" option coverage for ci-rustc) - rust-lang#133710 (Reducing `target_feature` check-cfg merge conflicts) - rust-lang#133732 (Fix `-Zdump-mir-dataflow`) - rust-lang#133746 (Change `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant) - rust-lang#133763 (Fix `f16::midpoint` const feature gate) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of rust-lang#133710 - Urgau:target_feature-merge-conflitcs, r=jieyouxu Reducing `target_feature` check-cfg merge conflicts It was rightfully pointed in rust-lang#133099 (comment) that the expected values for the `target_feature` cfg are regularly updated and unfortunately the check-cfg tests for it are very merge-conflict prone. This PR aims at drastically reducing the likely-hood of those, by normalizing the "and X more" diagnostic, as well as making the full expected list multi-line instead of being on a single one. cc `@RalfJung` r? `@jieyouxu`
It was rightfully pointed in #133099 (comment) that the expected values for the
target_featurecfg are regularly updated and unfortunately the check-cfg tests for it are very merge-conflict prone.This PR aims at drastically reducing the likely-hood of those, by normalizing the "and X more" diagnostic, as well as making the full expected list multi-line instead of being on a single one.
cc @RalfJung
r? @jieyouxu