-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
Enforce that UNTRACKED options are not accessed by queries #91866
Conversation
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@pierwill when you remove |
I'm still thinking about how to implement @bjorn3's suggestion in #90317 (comment). This change seems like the obvious place to start: 658e745. But to create the "getters", would it be best to eventually use a macro? Or maybe we could add code here? |
5182cb5
to
658e745
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Here's an example method "getter": https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91866/files/658e745071fb093b6fe13b034b92ab24ae988df1..6e4071881aa98ec7df1f769be26f0b188102b956 If we were to do this for all options, deduplicating the code should be more or less straightword. Does this help us with the underlying issue in #90317? 🤔 Update: Ah! The point is to run |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
This means that the getter functions for each option will need access to the If we do need access to either or both of those data structures, I'm not sure how best to go about it. Will this require adding a dependency on |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #98975) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Closing this as it has been inactive for a long time. Feel free to reöpen or create a new PR if needed :) thanks |
Part of #90317.
See #90317 (comment).