make the C part of compiler-builtins opt-out #56435
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This was referenced Dec 2, 2018
I believe it doesn't work cross organization. |
bjorn3
requested changes
Dec 2, 2018
| @@ -43,9 +43,12 @@ cc = "1.0" | |||
| build_helper = { path = "../build_helper" } | |||
|
|
|||
| [features] | |||
| default = ["compiler_builtins_c"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just "compiler_builtins/c" here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because then one cannot enable it from "outside", like in Xargo.
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit bd20718 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors: rollup |
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2018
…ichton make the C part of compiler-builtins opt-out I'd like to be able to use Xargo to build a libstd without having a full C toolchain for the target. This is a start (but the fact that libstd is a dylib is still a problem). However, compiler_builtin already has somewhat similar logic to not require a C compiler for wasm: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/compiler-builtins/blob/fe74674f6e4be76d47b66f67d529ebf4186f4eb1/build.rs#L36-L41 (WTF GitHub, why doesn't this show an embedded code preview??) I wonder if there is a way to not have two separate mechanisms? Like, move the above wasm logic to some place that controls the libstd feature, or so? Or is it okay to have these two mechanisms co-exist? Cc @alexcrichton
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2018
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - #56141 ([std] Osstr len clarity) - #56366 (Stabilize self_in_typedefs feature) - #56395 (Stabilize dbg!(...)) - #56401 (Move VecDeque::resize_with out of the impl<T:Clone> block) - #56402 (Improve the unstable book example for #[marker] trait) - #56412 (Update tracking issue for `extern_crate_self`) - #56416 (Remove unneeded body class selector) - #56418 (Fix failing tidy (line endings on Windows)) - #56419 (Remove some uses of try!) - #56432 (Update issue number of `shrink_to` methods to point the tracking issue) - #56433 (Add description about `crate` for parse_visibility's comment) - #56435 (make the C part of compiler-builtins opt-out) - #56438 (Remove not used `DotEq` token) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'd like to be able to use Xargo to build a libstd without having a full C toolchain for the target. This is a start (but the fact that libstd is a dylib is still a problem).
However, compiler_builtin already has somewhat similar logic to not require a C compiler for wasm:
https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/compiler-builtins/blob/fe74674f6e4be76d47b66f67d529ebf4186f4eb1/build.rs#L36-L41
(WTF GitHub, why doesn't this show an embedded code preview??)
I wonder if there is a way to not have two separate mechanisms? Like, move the above wasm logic to some place that controls the libstd feature, or so? Or is it okay to have these two mechanisms co-exist?
Cc @alexcrichton