You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Suppose we have a workspace with crate A, that should build with build-std=core,alloc and crate B with build-std=std,core,alloc, [...]. Additionally crate B links with / depends on crate A.
It would be great if there was a way to configure separate build-std parameters for each crate directly in cargo, without resorting to a custom-build script or a RUSTC_WRAPPER.
Motivation
In my case crate A would be a [no_std] (uni-)kernel and crate B some application, that links to the kernel. Currently linking is done via a build-script, but in the long-term I'm hoping it's possible to support such a configuration directly in cargo.
There is a similar (open) issue in cargo regarding supporting separate targets for each crate when calling cargo build. The motivation is similar and I suspect implementing a solution would be similar for both issues too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think what you want is #5 --- way to specify the standard library depencies in Cargo.toml like any other dependency. build-std=.* is blatantly non-compositional, and only was included for sake of getting a prototype out there.
Suppose we have a workspace with crate A, that should build with
build-std=core,alloc
and crate B withbuild-std=std,core,alloc, [...]
. Additionally crate B links with / depends on crate A.It would be great if there was a way to configure separate
build-std
parameters for each crate directly in cargo, without resorting to a custom-build script or a RUSTC_WRAPPER.Motivation
In my case crate A would be a [no_std] (uni-)kernel and crate B some application, that links to the kernel. Currently linking is done via a build-script, but in the long-term I'm hoping it's possible to support such a configuration directly in cargo.
There is a similar (open) issue in cargo regarding supporting separate targets for each crate when calling cargo build. The motivation is similar and I suspect implementing a solution would be similar for both issues too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: