Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Tracking issue for Path Prefix Remapping #41555
Good question. I did not heard any complaints about the way things currently work -- which I interpret as everybody being happy
Other than that, two open topics are:
I personally would be fine with either of the first two options.
We use it in clippy for making our tests' stderr output OS independent. Works like a charm: https://github.com/Manishearth/rust-clippy/blob/master/tests/examples.rs#L29
Oh right. I was going by the code at the bottom of this older comment, I didn't notice you had gone back to plain string matching. What was the reason? I know GCC also do plain string matching, but I actually prefer path-level matching because it would be easier to use. This cross-platform duplication issue is a further example in that area.
@infinity0 I'm divided on whether path matching should be string- or component-based. Component-based is a bit more ergonomic in the cross-platform case. I'm not sure though if it can be somewhat less predictable in corner cases (e.g. strange Windows path prefixes).
@jsgf That should be doable.
I'm nominating this for the next @rust-lang/dev-tools meeting to discuss string matching and which form the CLI should take -- and then we can let the appropriate subteams vote on it.
@rust-lang/core: Which teams need to sign off on stabilizing this? Quick recap: This feature allows to remap file paths (in output messages and output artifacts) to be remapped. This is necessary for reproducible builds and helps with custom debugging setups.
referenced this issue
Aug 8, 2017
This has been discussed in the @rust-lang/dev-tools meeting and the conclusion was that we want to stabilize in the following form:
@rfcbot fcp merge
Team member @michaelwoerister has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:
No concerns currently listed.
Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
So in other words you would split on the final
I can confirm that #44940 fixed the compile issues I was seeing when using this feature and a simple
Thoughts on privacy
I think this feature possesses the mechanics to more broadly address privacy issues for closed-source code. This may be out of scope for the current issue, but I wanted to bring it up now since this feature hasn't been fully implemented yet.
The current reality for closed source code is that any time a
Let's say a company creates a video game with some hidden content. If the source for that module included a
Using this feature, the company now has a manual way to suppress this at compile time (cool!):
But note that this is very manual (need a
Straw Man Proposal
If rustc let you suppress all uses of