some benefit from "cargo check"?

Question

some benefit from "cargo check"?

opened this issue 7 years ago · comments

Deleted user commented 7 years ago

Is possible to improve flycheck-rust with the introduction of the command cargo check on rust 1.16?

Deleted user · Answer 1 · Fri Mar 17 2017 03:25:17 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

that would be awesome

fmdkdd · Answer 2 · Fri Mar 17 2017 19:26:36 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks for reminding me of this.

We already pass -Z no-trans to rustc in Flycheck to avoid compiling binaries and taking too much time. I suspect we won't see a significant improvement by using cargo check; the only benefit would be to support some advanced uses that -Z no-trans did not.

fmdkdd · Answer 3 · Fri Mar 17 2017 19:37:47 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I just tested it, and cargo check cannot currently check code inside #[cfg(test], so that would be a regression in functionality. I think we better to stick to -Z no-trans until this is resolved at least.

Deleted user · Answer 4 · Fri Mar 17 2017 20:44:17 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks, then I think we will wait :)

fmdkdd · Answer 5 · Tue May 16 2017 16:39:06 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Update: using -Z flags on stable may soon be an error, rather than a warning. Thus, we will then have to migrate to cargo check.

However, at the moment cargo check still does not check unit tests, but there is an ongoing PR.

Jeff Larson · Answer 6 · Fri Jul 21 2017 04:57:21 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Hi, it is now an error in the rust version released today.

I'll hold off on using 1.19 for now, as it looks like the upstream PR is still not merged rust-lang/rust#41751 but it looks like a tricky one to fix without that. Thanks for flycheck-rust it is great!

fmdkdd · Answer 7 · Fri Jul 21 2017 05:07:13 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Argh! Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like we'll have to use cargo check without unit tests then. I'll try to make a PR tomorrow.