Use custom cargo/rustc paths when parsing flags. #42695
Merged
Conversation
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
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 7326737 has been approved by |
|
I confirm it fixes #41779 for me (I applied it on 1.18.0) |
|
The patch indeed fixes #41779. Should the commit message be amended to mention that it |
Mark-Simulacrum
added
beta-nominated
|
⌛ Testing commit 7326737 with merge 362a323... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
|
Presumably spurious timeout @bors retry |
alexcrichton
added
the
beta-accepted
Mark-Simulacrum
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors rollup |
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2017
…crichton Use custom cargo/rustc paths when parsing flags. Fixes rust-lang#41779, probably also rust-lang#42543 (I think they're duplicates). I'm not entirely happy with the implementation, since it means we parse the configuration twice, but it's the minimal solution. I think the other choice is to move both calls to Config::parse inside Flags::parse and merge them, but I don't know if that's a good idea. r? @alexcrichton
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2017
…crichton Use custom cargo/rustc paths when parsing flags. Fixes rust-lang#41779, probably also rust-lang#42543 (I think they're duplicates). I'm not entirely happy with the implementation, since it means we parse the configuration twice, but it's the minimal solution. I think the other choice is to move both calls to Config::parse inside Flags::parse and merge them, but I don't know if that's a good idea. r? @alexcrichton
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2017
Closed
alexcrichton
removed
the
beta-nominated
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2017
[beta] backports - #42785 - #42740 - #42735 - #42728 - #42695 - #42659 - #42634 - #42566 I just unilaterally accepted all the non-accepted nominations. Everything picked cleanly. Still testing locally. cc @rust-lang/compiler r? @alexcrichton
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2017
[beta] backports - #42785 - #42740 - #42735 - #42728 - #42695 - #42659 - #42634 - #42566 I just unilaterally accepted all the non-accepted nominations. Everything picked cleanly. Still testing locally. cc @rust-lang/compiler r? @alexcrichton
Merged
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 27, 2017
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 27, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Fixes #41779, probably also #42543 (I think they're duplicates).
I'm not entirely happy with the implementation, since it means we parse the configuration twice, but it's the minimal solution. I think the other choice is to move both calls to Config::parse inside Flags::parse and merge them, but I don't know if that's a good idea.
r? @alexcrichton