docs(trim-paths): add limitations and polish - #17425
Conversation
rustbot
added
A-documenting-cargo-itself
|
r? @epage rustbot has assigned @epage. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
|
cc @Urgau, if you'd also like to take a look. I generally want to mostly refer to rustc docs 😆. |
6a4abd9 to
f4b56c6
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| It takes the following values: | ||
|
|
||
| - `"none"` and `false` --- disable path sanitization | ||
| - `"macro"` --- sanitize paths in the expansion of `std::file!()` macro. | ||
| This is where paths in embedded panic messages come from | ||
| - `"diagnostics"` --- sanitize paths in printed compiler diagnostics | ||
| - `"object"` --- sanitize paths in compiled executables or libraries | ||
| - `"all"` and `true` --- sanitize paths in all possible locations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know if this list is intended to be the same as rustc, but if it's the case then it's missing the coverage and debuginfo scopes. If it's intended to diverge, it should maybe be mentioned that it's only a subset.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I avoided touching this right now at this moment as we may want to stabilize a subset.
We are discussing it in #t-cargo > stabilization plan for `-Ztrim-paths` (though no discussions yet)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are discussing it in #t-cargo > stabilization plan for
-Ztrim-paths(though no discussions yet)
Replied the in the Zulip thread.
This is implementation details for better diagonstic remap that is not really meaning for cargo users directly.
f4b56c6 to
2198a00
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
4 participants
What does this PR try to resolve?
This doc polish is a stabilization preparation.
See #12137 (comment)
How to test and review this PR?
This is stacked on top of #17424 to minimize merge conflict. Please review from c99bbf2