Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC 3127: path sanitisation changes #516

Closed
pnkfelix opened this issue May 26, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

RFC 3127: path sanitisation changes #516

pnkfelix opened this issue May 26, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented May 26, 2022

Meeting proposal info

  • Title: Discuss RFC 3127
  • Type: technical

Summary

Discuss rust-lang/rfcs#3127

From rust-lang/rfcs#3127 (comment) :

A summary of recent changes:

  1. Instead of letting Cargo decide whether or not to sanitise debuginfo based on -C split-debuginfo setting (which necessitated Cargo feeding different arguments to rustc depending on that codegen option), explicit scopes unsplit-debuginfo and split-debuginfo are now created to target only embedded and split debuginfo respectively. unsplit-debuginfo does nothing when the debuginfo is split, and split-debuginfo does nothing when the debuginfo is unsplit.

  2. Instead of numbers, the value of trim-paths is now descriptive words (or list of words) that is passed through directly to --remap-path-scopes. This is achieved by extending --remap-path-scope to take in aliases such as object = macro,unsplit-debuginfo,split-debuginfo-file (default for release profiles). Note that this does not make trim-paths a simple pass through to rustc like most other profile options, because Cargo needs to generate and emit the actual path mappings via --remap-path-prefix when trim-paths is not none.

Since most of the implementation complexities will be in rustc and not Cargo, I really want to hear what @rust-lang/compiler thinks about this (I know you guys are busy 😅)

About this issue

This issue corresponds to a meeting proposal for the compiler team
steering meeting. It corresponds to a possible topic of
discussion. You can read more about the steering meeting procedure
here
.

Comment policy

These issues are meant to be used as an "announcements channel"
regarding the proposal, and not as a place to discuss the technical
details. Feel free to subscribe to updates. We'll post comments when
reviewing the proposal in meetings or making a scheduling decision.
In the meantime, if you have questions or ideas, ping the proposers
on Zulip (or elsewhere).

@pnkfelix pnkfelix changed the title (My meeting proposal) RFC 3127: path sanitation changes May 26, 2022
@pnkfelix pnkfelix changed the title RFC 3127: path sanitation changes RFC 3127: path sanitisation changes May 26, 2022
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented May 5, 2023

@pnkfelix pnkfelix closed this as completed May 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants