Skip to content

Make search path debugging info! for easier debugging #36987

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Zoxc
Copy link
Contributor

@Zoxc Zoxc commented Oct 5, 2016

No description provided.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @nikomatsakis

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm. I have no particular objection to this, but I do wonder about the "stability" of said messages. Perhaps we want some explicit text stating that we make no promises here?

cc @eddyb -- seems related to things we were discussing before about compiler's debug logs though =)

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Oct 11, 2016

We need to change the builtin log crate to use RUSTC_LOG instead of RUST_LOG before we add more of these - maybe it can be done in rustc_driver specifically.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

nikomatsakis commented Oct 13, 2016

@eddyb

We need to change the builtin log crate to use RUSTC_LOG instead of RUST_LOG before we add more of these - maybe it can be done in rustc_driver specifically.

I think I agree. I have no idea how to do this though. :)

(Haven't looked at how logging works in a while; it's been refactored quite a bit I think?)

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 17, 2016

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #37082) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@Zoxc

For context, @eddyb has been pointing out that if you do RUST_LOG=... cargo run, changes are that you intend to this RUST_LOG to apply to program you are running, not the compiler. For now, since the majority of logs are debug and compiled out, this isn't much of an issue, but if we're going to expand infos -- and in particular if we're going to expand to include infos that are targeting end-users -- this becomes a bigger concern. Especially since it could become part of a de facto stable interface; I know that I myself never considered the possibility that people would rely on the RUST_LOG behavior of rustc until recently. Anyway, TL;DR is that at minimum we'd rather change to RUSTC_LOG before we add any more output into rustc. Would you be up for pursuing such a patch?

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

OK, I'm going to close this PR in light of @eddyb's comment in any case. @Zoxc let me know if you're up to rename RUST_LOG =)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants