Skip to content

Note the version and PR of removed features when using it #141642

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

xizheyin
Copy link
Contributor

@xizheyin xizheyin commented May 27, 2025

Partially Fixes #141619

I added the diagnostic information. Since all the current version information is present, it prints the version information anyway, as shown in tests/ui. And PR will not print if it is None, we can gradually add the PR links.

Split into two commits for easier review.

r? compiler

cc @jyn514 Since you're on vocation in the review list, I can't r? you.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 27, 2025
@xizheyin xizheyin changed the title Issue Note the version and PR of removed features when using it May 27, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

r? compiler (bandwidth)

@rustbot rustbot assigned lcnr and unassigned jieyouxu May 27, 2025
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thank you! this looks very good, i just have one comment about the new macro :)

@xizheyin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I tried opt_nonzero_u32!($($pull)?),, but it reports

error[E0015]: cannot call non-const method `std::option::Option::<NonZero<u32>>::or` in statics

So, I use helper macros to parse pull.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented May 27, 2025

gotcha - can you write out the match explicitly instead of using or? i do think for this file specifically that having an accurate git blame is helpful.

separately i will open an issue to make or const, there's no reason for it not to be.

sess.dcx().emit_err(FeatureRemoved {
span: mi.span(),
reason: f.reason.map(|reason| FeatureRemovedReason { reason }),
span,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: seems the shorthand style here has more lines of code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the reminder, indeed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@xizheyin xizheyin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you write out the match explicitly instead of using or?

My current approach should have accomplished the goal?

Comment on lines +15 to +21
macro_rules! opt_nonzero_u32 {
() => {
None
};
($val:expr) => {
Some(NonZeroU32::new($val).unwrap())
};
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I used an auxiliary macro to get around this to make sure the git blame doesn't get broken.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

track the version and PR in which a nightly feature was removed
8 participants