This can help with verifying that the crate is correctly handling conditional compilation for different target platforms or features. It ensures that the cfg settings are consistent between what is intended and what is used, helping to catch potential bugs or errors early in the development process.This can help with verifying that the crate is correctly handling conditional compilation for different target platforms or features. It ensures that the cfg settings are consistent between what is intended and what is used, helping to catch potential bugs or errors early in the development process.

The Automatic Checking of cfgs: How It Works

The Cargo and Compiler team are delighted to announce that starting with Rust 1.80 (or nightly-2024-05-05) every reachable #[cfg] will be automatically checked that they match the expected config names and values.

\ This can help with verifying that the crate is correctly handling conditional compilation for different target platforms or features. It ensures that the cfg settings are consistent between what is intended and what is used, helping to catch potential bugs or errors early in the development process.

\ This addresses a common pitfall for new and advanced users.

\ This is another step to our commitment to provide user-focused tooling and we are eager and excited to finally see it fixed, after more than two years since the original RFC 30131.

A look at the feature

Every time a Cargo feature is declared that feature is transformed into a config that is passed to rustc (the Rust compiler) so it can verify with it along with well known cfgs if any of the #[cfg], #![cfg_attr] and cfg! have unexpected configs and report a warning with the unexpected_cfgs lint.

Cargo.toml:

[package] name = "foo" [features] lasers = [] zapping = []

\ src/lib.rs:

#[cfg(feature = "lasers")] // This condition is expected // as "lasers" is an expected value // of the `feature` cfg fn shoot_lasers() {} #[cfg(feature = "monkeys")] // This condition is UNEXPECTED // as "monkeys" is NOT an expected // value of the `feature` cfg fn write_shakespeare() {} #[cfg(windosw)] // This condition is UNEXPECTED // it's supposed to be `windows` fn win() {}

\ cargo check:

Expecting custom cfgs

UPDATE: This section was added with the release of nightly-2024-05-19.

\ Some crates might use custom cfgs, like loom, fuzzing or tokio_unstable that they expected from the environment (RUSTFLAGS or other means) and which are always statically known at compile time. For those cases, Cargo provides via the [lints] table a way to statically declare those cfgs as expected.

\ Defining those custom cfgs as expected is done through the special check-cfg config under [lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs]:

Cargo.toml

[lints.rust] unexpected_cfgs = { level = "warn", check-cfg = ['cfg(loom)', 'cfg(fuzzing)'] }

Custom cfgs in build scripts

On the other hand some crates use custom cfgs that are enabled by some logic in the crate build.rs. For those crates Cargo provides a new instruction: cargo::rustc-check-cfg2 (or cargo:rustc-check-cfg for older Cargo version).

\ The syntax to use is described in the rustc book section checking configuration, but in a nutshell the basic syntax of --check-cfg is:

cfg(name, values("value1", "value2", ..., "valueN"))

\ Note that every custom cfgs must always be expected, regardless if the cfg is active or not!

build.rs example

build.rs:

fn main() { println!("cargo::rustc-check-cfg=cfg(has_foo)"); // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ new with Cargo 1.80 if has_foo() { println!("cargo::rustc-cfg=has_foo"); } }

Equivalence table

\ More details can be found in the rustc book.

Frequently asked questions

Can it be disabled?

For Cargo users, the feature is always on and cannot be disabled, but like any other lints it can be controlled: #![warn(unexpected_cfgs)].

Does the lint affect dependencies?

No, like most lints, unexpected_cfgs will only be reported for local packages thanks to cap-lints.

How does it interact with the RUSTFLAGS env?

You should be able to use the RUSTFLAGS environment variable like it was before. Currently --cfg arguments are not checked, only usage in code are.

\ This means that doing RUSTFLAGS="--cfg tokio_unstable" cargo check will not report any warnings, unless tokio_unstable is used within your local crates, in which case crate author will need to make sure that that custom cfg is expected with cargo::rustc-check-cfg in the build.rs of that crate.

How to expect custom cfgs without a build.rs?

UPDATE: Cargo with nightly-2024-05-19 now provides the [lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg] config to address the statically known custom cfgs.

\ There is currently no way to expect a custom cfg other than with cargo::rustc-check-cfg in a build.rs.

\ Crate authors that don't want to use a build.rs and cannot use [lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg], are encouraged to use Cargo features instead.

How does it interact with other build systems?

Non-Cargo based build systems are not affected by the lint by default. Build system authors that wish to have the same functionality should look at the rustc documentation for the --check-cfg flag for a detailed explanation of how to achieve the same functionality.

\

  1. The stabilized implementation and RFC 3013 diverge significantly, in particular there is only one form for --check-cfg: cfg() (instead of values() and names() being incomplete and subtlety incompatible with each other). ↩
  2. cargo::rustc-check-cfg will start working in Rust 1.80 (or nightly-2024-05-05). From Rust 1.77 to Rust 1.79 (inclusive) it is silently ignored. In Rust 1.76 and below a warning is emitted when used without the unstable Cargo flag -Zcheck-cfg. ↩

Urgau on behalf of The Cargo Team

\ Also published here

Market Opportunity
Centrifuge Logo
Centrifuge Price(CFG)
$0.1253
$0.1253$0.1253
-0.15%
USD
Centrifuge (CFG) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
U.S. Banks Near Stablecoin Issuance Under FDIC Genius Act Plan

U.S. Banks Near Stablecoin Issuance Under FDIC Genius Act Plan

The post U.S. Banks Near Stablecoin Issuance Under FDIC Genius Act Plan appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. U.S. banks could soon begin applying to issue payment
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/17 02:55
Zero-Trust Databases: Redefining the Future of Data Security

Zero-Trust Databases: Redefining the Future of Data Security

Sayantan Saha is a researcher in advanced computing and data protection. He explores how zero-trust databases are reshaping the landscape of information security.
Share
Hackernoon2025/09/18 14:19