You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Your bug report instructions mention that "It's also helpful to copy/paste the output of re-running the erroneous rustc command with the -v flag", but since the -v flag causes rustc to print its version and exit, i am skeptical of this claim.
This is either a really odd way to ask for the version, or a bit of advice that's no longer relevant. What should we say instead? RUST_LOG=rustc rustc is a bit too verbose — I killed it after it wrote 8.1 GB of logs compiling fn main() { let x = 3u; }.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think the intent was indeed to get the version output. I think the phrasing is only odd in that it does not make that intent clear. (It is possible I am wrong about the intent here.)
But there is an additional problem: Sometime between 0.10 and 0.11, we revised the -v / --version output to ensure it would be only one line when you do not supply an argument to --version. This means we lose potentially relevant information, namely the host system type (e.g. x86_64-apple-darwin or i686-apple-darwin).
We could fix both of these problems by revising the instructions to say something like:
It's also helpful to provide the exact version and host by copying the output of re-running the erroneous rustc command with the --version=verbose flag, which will produce something like this:
Noticed in #17824.
This is either a really odd way to ask for the version, or a bit of advice that's no longer relevant. What should we say instead?
RUST_LOG=rustc rustc
is a bit too verbose — I killed it after it wrote 8.1 GB of logs compilingfn main() { let x = 3u; }
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: