Tracking Issue for location-detail

[kornelski]

Summary

RFC: #2091
Original issue: rust-lang/rust#70580
Documentation: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/unstable-book/compiler-flags/location-detail.html

Before stabilizing location-detail, I'd like to try integrating it with Cargo, in the spirit of #12739

Unresolved Issues

• Should it support location-detail = false to mean "none"?
• For multi-valued option, is it okay to support "file,line" as a string, or should it be ["file", "line"] or both? It should be an array.

Future Extensions

No response

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

[weihanglo]

For multi-valued option, is it okay to support "file,line" as a string, or should it be ["file", "line"] or both?

IMO comma-separared values in TOML configuration are not preferred in Cargo.

[Gibbz]

Is this available for testing? Is like to set this to none and have it in my cargo.toml file 👍

[kornelski]

It's not available.

I've started implementing it, and found that addition of new Cargo.toml options touches a surprising number of places in Cargo. It's a lot of boilerplate, and needs a lot of custom tests.

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/the-burden-of-creating-new-compiler-options-and-exposing-them-in-cargo/22101

I don't know how to proceed, because even though it's a tiny change from user perspective, it's going to be a non-trivial amount of code changed in Cargo, and I'm afraid that such PR wouldn't be easy to land.

[epage]

If its following existing batterns, is unstable, and the issue is accepted then it should be trivial to merge.