On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:38 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is rust-analyzer necessary to talk about? I think most kernel > developers aren't using LSP clients, so it doesn't seem necessary to > talk about for kernel development IMO. If a developer would like to > use an LSP client, they should refer to the documentation of their LSP > client. I think it is fair to advertise it given we have support for generating its configuration. Otherwise, people might miss the script and spend time generating a configuration by hand (which takes quite some time and would not carry the `CONFIG_*` settings etc.). And they may start using it if they did not hear about it! :) > Should Documentation/process/changes.rst be updated to note which > versions of all of these tools are currently supported? For the ones required for building, they are already there (i.e. `rustc` and `bindgen`). For the rest, most come with the Rust toolchain, so I think there is no need to list them explicitly. For `rust-analyzer`, it is "rolling", so it does not make much sense to put it in any case. > For the compat table, for 32b ARM, why is v6 supported but not v7? Why > only when optimizations are enabled? For arch support, we only have a few fixed Rust target files for the moment as examples (thus we picked v6) -- we will generate those with a script later on. For particular restrictions (such as the optimization level), we will look into solving those bits later on. In any case, it is not a priority, since less than `-O2` is intended only for kernel hacking. > Doesn't this also depend on rustc having support for a given target > triple? Just because LLVM has a backend for a given architecture > doesn't mean rustc can target it, right? No -- currently we use custom target files instead of particular triples (see previous point), which are basically the settings `rustc` forwards to LLVM for codegen. Cheers, Miguel
