On Sun Apr 6, 2025 at 11:31 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 11:17 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Maybe we should rename it to something more discouraging then. Eg >> CONFIG_RUST_BUILD_ASSERT_DISABLE. > > To clarify: it doesn't disable them, but rather converts them to runtime checks. Yeah I checked what it does before. I still think that we should consider this as disabling the build asserts. > Perhaps it should be _ESCAPE_HATCH or _KEEP_DISABLED or _AT_RUNTIME or > similar -- though changing it now may be even more confusing. I don't understand what _KEEP_DISABLED would mean. For me, _DISABLE sounds much more "threatening" than the other options. Maybe we should also hide it behind CONFIG_EXPERT? > The description already mentions it should not happen, and that is an > escape hatch, and the recommendation and the default is N. So if > someone enables it in production, they really went out of their way to > do so, and even then they are protected by the panics (that they > shouldn't hit at all). I suspect that most of the people sadly don't read the description. > Eventually, we may just want to remove it entirely if we never see a > case failing and/or if we get proper support for those from upstream > Rust for this. Yeah, the upstream support would be the best. Did we ever need to enable this option? --- Cheers, Benno
