Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Simplify gated cfg checking - #34272
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to stop compilation if there were errors here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any reason to stop compilation -- the only errors that get reported here are malformed cfg attributes (in which case the item is kept), malformed cfg_attr attributes (in which case the attribute is removed), and malformed feature attributes (in which case we might not see the features).
At worst, the user might see some gated feature errors for a feature they intended to use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(also, gated cfg errors are reported, which definitely don't require us to stop compilation)
nrc
commented
Jun 16, 2016
@bors: r+ |
bors
commented
Jun 16, 2016
📌 Commit 80292a8 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Jun 16, 2016
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #34216) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
80292a8 to
64be754Comparebors
commented
Jun 16, 2016
📌 Commit 64be754 has been approved by |
64be754 to
92a9405Comparebors
commented
Jun 16, 2016
📌 Commit 92a9405 has been approved by |
92a9405 to
2cd6ccfComparejseyfried
commented
Jun 16, 2016
@bors r=nrc |
bors
commented
Jun 16, 2016
📌 Commit 2cd6ccf has been approved by |
bors
commented
Jun 16, 2016
Simplify gated cfg checking r? @nrc
bors
commented
Jun 17, 2016
Avoid processing `feature`s on unconfigured crates Fixesrust-lang#34932, a regression caused by rust-lang#34272. r? @nrc
r? @nrc