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

Changing -O to opt-level=3 #828

Open
2 of 3 tasks
clubby789 opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 2 comments
Open
2 of 3 tasks

Changing -O to opt-level=3 #828

clubby789 opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 2 comments
Labels
final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team

Comments

@clubby789
Copy link

clubby789 commented Jan 14, 2025

Proposal

The -O flag has existed for over 14 years, predating opt-levels entirely. It is somewhat surprising that it means opt-level=2, especially as Cargo's release profile uses level 3.

In C compilers, -O usually means a non-maximum opt level as some optimizations can cause unsoundness; Rust doesn't have this limitation. (Not sure this part is true)

I'd like to propose changing this shorthand flag to a more useful default.

Process

The main points of the Major Change Process are as follows:

  • File an issue describing the proposal.
  • A compiler team member or contributor who is knowledgeable in the area can second by writing @rustbot second.
    • Finding a "second" suffices for internal changes. If however, you are proposing a new public-facing feature, such as a -C flag, then full team check-off is required.
    • Compiler team members can initiate a check-off via @rfcbot fcp merge on either the MCP or the PR.
  • Once an MCP is seconded, the Final Comment Period begins. If no objections are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved.

You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.

Comments

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

@clubby789 clubby789 added major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team labels Jan 14, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 14, 2025

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

Concerns or objections to the proposal should be discussed on Zulip and formally registered here by adding a comment with the following syntax:

@rfcbot concern reason-for-concern 
<description of the concern> 

Concerns can be lifted with:

@rfcbot resolve reason-for-concern 

See documentation at https://forge.rust-lang.org

cc @rust-lang/compiler

@rustbot rustbot added the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Jan 14, 2025
@Noratrieb
Copy link
Member

@rustbot second

@rustbot rustbot added the final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement label Jan 14, 2025
@apiraino apiraino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Jan 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants