Document -Zcache-proc-macros
#151227
Document -Zcache-proc-macros
#151227
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Is there a tracking issue? |
If there isn't one, we should create one and link it from the new page. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| ## `cache-proc-macros` | |||
|
|
|||
| This option instructs `rustc` to cache (derive) proc-macro invocations using the incremental system. Note that this can be unsouned - we currently do not check if the macro invocation is actually "cacheable" or not. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This option instructs `rustc` to cache (derive) proc-macro invocations using the incremental system. Note that this can be unsouned - we currently do not check if the macro invocation is actually "cacheable" or not. | |
| This option instructs `rustc` to cache (derive) proc-macro invocations using the incremental system. Note that this can be unsound - we currently do not check if the macro invocation is actually "cacheable" or not. |
also, about the "we currently do not check" part, is the plan is to infer whether the proc-macro is cacheable (seems unlikely), or rather respect what the user promises about its behavior? This could just mention that enabling the flag for proc-macros that are not pure functions is bound to reuse stale extensions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
rather respect what the user promises about its behavior?
That is the plan, I suppose? There were a lot of proposals for this, but I don't think we have a winner :)
Kobzol
force-pushed
the
document-cache-proc-macros
branch
from
d552bac to
345e9a0
Compare
|
Created a tracking issue, mentioned it in the docs and reworded the cacheability aspect. |
6 participants
Forgot about this in #145354.
Created a tracking issue in #151364.