Conversation
|
CC @matklad. |
Owner
Author
|
I am also working on a Cargo PR to make this the default behavior in Cargo i.e. include RUSTC_WRAPPER in the fingerprint used for deciding whether to rerun every build script, as is already done for RUSTC and various other important environment details. |
Repository owner
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Nov 2, 2022
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously if someone did a build via rust-analyzer, it would run anyhow's build script through rust-analyzer's questionable RUSTC_WRAPPER (#250), and then future
cargoinvocations done on the command line not via rust-analyzer would bypass the build script, untilcargo cleanor thetargetdir being deleted.This PR is an alternative to #251 that tries to isolate command-line
cargobuilds from getting poisoned by rust-analyzer's running of the build script and cargo's caching of the build script output. In contrast to #251, this does not attempt to fix builds done through rust-analyzer, only direct cargo invocations. I still consider rust-analyzer's behavior incorrect so I want to not sweep it under the rug; getting that fixed in rust-analyzer will be between the rust-analyzer devs and its users.