Skip to content
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

Stabilize -C overflow-checks #1535

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 21, 2016
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
36 changes: 0 additions & 36 deletions 0000-template.md

This file was deleted.

64 changes: 64 additions & 0 deletions text/0000-stable-overflow-checks.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, my_awesome_feature)
- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)

# Summary
[summary]: #summary

Stabilize the `-C overflow-checks` command line argument.

# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation

This is an easy way to turn on overflow checks in release builds
without otherwise turning on debug assertions, via the `-C
debug-assertions` flag. In stable Rust today you can't get one without
the other.

Users can use the `-C overflow-checks` flag from their Cargo
config to turn on overflow checks for an entire application.

This flag, which accepts values of 'yes'/'no', 'on'/'off', is being
renamed from `force-overflow-checks` because the `force` doesn't add
anything that the 'yes'/'no'

# Detailed design
[design]: #detailed-design

This is a stabilization RFC. The only steps will be to move
`force-overflow-checks` from `-Z` to `-C`, renaming it to
`overflow-checks`, and making it stable.

# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks

It's another rather ad-hoc flag for modifying code generation.

Like other such flags, this applies to the entire code unit,
regardless of monomorphizations. This means that code generation for a
single function can be diferent based on which code unit its
instantiated in.

# Alternatives
[alternatives]: #alternatives

The flag could instead be tied to crates such that any time code from
that crate is inlined/monomorphized it turns on overflow checks.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like to hear people's opinions on this - it seems significant, but I don't have a good idea of how significant.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd imagine that if the option was crate-specific, that would be an incentive for the crate authors to rely on specific overflow semantics, which is undesirable.


We might also want a design that provides per-function control over
overflow checks.

# Unresolved questions
[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions

Cargo might also add a profile option like

```toml
[profile.dev]
overflow-checks = true
```

This may also be accomplished by Cargo's pending support for passing
arbitrary flags to rustc.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer to wait for this, rather than add more ad hoc options to Cargo