internal: Fix and enable unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn #17690
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
lnicola
force-pushed
the
unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn
branch
from
7f1c77b to
25f41e5
Compare
lnicola
force-pushed
the
unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn
branch
from
25f41e5 to
b392eb4
Compare
| @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ env: | |||
| CARGO_NET_RETRY: 10 | |||
| CI: 1 | |||
| RUST_BACKTRACE: short | |||
| RUSTFLAGS: "-D warnings -W unreachable-pub -W bare-trait-objects" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are warn by default, I don't think we need them here.
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
| @@ -163,14 +163,14 @@ xshell = "0.2.5" | |||
| dashmap = { version = "=5.5.3", features = ["raw-api"] } | |||
|
|
|||
| [workspace.lints.rust] | |||
| bare_trait_objects = "warn" | |||
| # remember to update RUSTFLAGS in ci.yml if you add something here | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wonder if we can make this work out better for CI 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could just set them to deny, I don't think it's going to be too annoying.
I don't think we can customize them for specific profiles: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/changing-lint-configuration-based-on-cargo-profile/107286/2.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's going to be too annoying.
That will stop check early won't it? That will absolutely annoy me when refactoring because I don't fix all of those warnings immediately
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That depends on whether you're using --keep-going or not 😄.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well no, because any dependency that errors (due to this) will prevent dependents from building still 😅 At least that is my understanding of --keep-going, it will make cargo no bail out on other independent work.
Closes #17689