involve rustup when determining toolchain paths#666
Conversation
|
Does not cover the case |
5c589b8 to
6a18f86
Compare
|
Is the restriction to rsut |
|
use a lookup for the Current ugliness:
|
|
This was more work than anticipated and the futures pre-stabilization caused quite a few not anticipated changes. |
|
Verified this at least solves #663 . |
650f167 to
b1de993
Compare
chmanchester
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for taking on this change, I think we certainly want to take something like this, although I agree it would be nice to be able to simplify the implementation. froydnj might be able to provide a more detailed review.
|
@froydnj if you could give some feedback so I can move this forward, that'd be great |
froydnj
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not have brilliant ideas on how to simplify things right now: the cache structure is necessarily more complicated because of rustup. Some comments below.
b77e4bd to
a77e0d3
Compare
|
@froydnj I addressed all concerns and verified it works using |
|
@froydnj can we clarify the last point, (either implement one of both options or merge this as is) unless there are any remaining issues? that'd be much appreciated - thanks! |
|
@froydnj @luser I implemented a hybrid solution of what both you suggested, after all they are not really exclusive and work very well hand in hand. Given the fact that it is only run once per task on the client, the amount of additional work required should be negligible since it's cached for subsequent compiles. |
|
|
|
Rebased, removed obsolete changes and resolved all review comments. |
involve rustup when determining toolchain paths (mozilla#666)
Start of impl to handle #87