mergiraf/mergiraf
mergiraf/mergiraf
9
213
Fork 45
Code Issues 51 Pull requests 7 Releases 19 Activity Actions

feat: add a Cargo feature for mgf_dev-specific functionality #541

Merged
wetneb merged 2 commits from dev-feature into main 2025-07-28 09:15:52 +02:00
Conversation 3 Commits 2 Files changed 4 +9 -3
ada4a commented 2025-07-26 21:17:09 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

as discussed in #534 (comment)

as discussed in https://codeberg.org/mergiraf/mergiraf/issues/534#issuecomment-5994640
make AstNode::commutatively_isomorphic_to dev-specific
All checks were successful
/ test (pull_request) Successful in 41s
Details
a9f0e3643d
wetneb approved these changes 2025-07-28 09:15:44 +02:00
wetneb merged commit a2a18332a3 into main 2025-07-28 09:15:52 +02:00
wetneb commented 2025-07-28 09:32:16 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

After using it in #536, I'm not super duper convinced by the usefulness of having a feature… it forces us to recursively gate quite some things with it (including use statements, so that they're not marked as unnecessary). Do we really gain something with this? Isn't the compiler good enough at getting rid of code that's not used in a given binary, especially with the LTO optimization?

After using it in #536, I'm not super duper convinced by the usefulness of having a feature… it forces us to recursively gate quite some things with it (including `use` statements, so that they're not marked as unnecessary). Do we really gain something with this? Isn't the compiler good enough at getting rid of code that's not used in a given binary, especially with the LTO optimization?
ada4a commented 2025-07-28 09:45:28 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

I agree it can be annoying – for me it's the fact that rust-analyzer blends out the feature-gated code and doesn't show diagnostics for it (although there is a solution).

One solution to the need for granular imports could be to put everything dev-specific into a separate module, and gate that under the feature. The commutative isomorphism code is mostly self-contained after all.

Isn't the compiler good enough at getting rid of code that's not used in a given binary?

Of course. It'll still compile the dev-only methods just to throw them away afterwards, which is a bit of a shame, but the resulting binary should be as lean as ever.

So overall I'm not too opposed to reverting this PR + turning on LTO in Cargo.toml (EDIT: nvm we have it turned on already)

I agree it can be annoying – for me it's the fact that rust-analyzer blends out the feature-gated code and doesn't show diagnostics for it ([although there is a solution](https://rust-analyzer.github.io/book/configuration.html#cargo.features)). One solution to the need for granular imports could be to put everything dev-specific into a separate module, and gate _that_ under the feature. The commutative isomorphism code is mostly self-contained after all. > Isn't the compiler good enough at getting rid of code that's not used in a given binary? Of course. It'll still compile the dev-only methods just to throw them away afterwards, which is a bit of a shame, but the resulting binary should be as lean as ever. So overall I'm not too opposed to reverting this PR ~+ turning on LTO in Cargo.toml~ (EDIT: nvm we have it turned on already)
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
wetneb
Labels
Clear labels   
Compat/Breaking

Breaking change that won't be backward compatible

  
Kind
Bad merge
Examples where the merging algorithm doesn't work as well as it should

  
Kind
Bug
Something is not working

  
Kind
Documentation
Documentation changes

  
Kind
Enhancement
Improve existing functionality

  
Kind
Feature
New functionality

  
Kind
New language

  
Kind
Security
This is security issue

  
Kind
Testing
Issue or pull request related to testing

  
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical

  
Priority
High
The priority is high

  
Priority
Low
The priority is low

  
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium

  
Reviewed
Confirmed
Issue has been confirmed

  
Reviewed
Duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists

  
Reviewed
Invalid
Invalid issue

  
Reviewed
Won't Fix
This issue won't be fixed

  
Status
Abandoned
Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work

  
Status
Blocked
Something is blocking this issue or pull request

  
Status
Need More Info
Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work

No labels
Compat/Breaking
Kind
Bad merge
Kind
Bug
Kind
Documentation
Kind
Enhancement
Kind
Feature
Kind
New language
Kind
Security
Kind
Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: mergiraf/mergiraf#541
No description provided.
Delete branch "dev-feature"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?