Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 3, 2020. It is now read-only.

Crates with inner attributes in root module no longer build #229

Closed
philip-alldredge opened this issue Aug 2, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #231
Closed

Crates with inner attributes in root module no longer build #229

philip-alldredge opened this issue Aug 2, 2019 · 1 comment · Fixed by #231

Comments

@philip-alldredge
Copy link
Contributor

philip-alldredge commented Aug 2, 2019

The Problem

The build system merged in #223 fails to build crates which have inner attributes in the root module.

Incomplete Example

// Inner attributes
#![no_std]
#![cfg_attr(
not(any(
    feature = "example_feature"
    )),
	allow(dead_code, unused_extern_crates, unused_imports)
)]

// macro_use attribute is only allowed at the crate root.
#[macro_use]
extern crate lazy_static;

mod child_mod;

fn main() {
	child_mod::do_something();
}

References

There is a proposed solution at the bottom of the issue. The following sections are included for discussion and documentation purposes.

Things that don't work.

Nested module with path attribute

For most uses of include!, this can be worked around by declaring an inner module and use the path attribute such at:

#[path="../real/main.rs"]
mod inner;

However, this solution is not feasible for our use case because:

  • main is private and cannot be called
  • Produces an error because macro_use is no longer at the crate root.
  • Furthermore, although no_std will compile, it will produce a warning since it is not at the crate level.

Embed main.rs into lib.rs

Simply moving the contents of the root module such as main.rs into lib.rs does not work. Since lib.rs is in a separate directory, it is unable to find any additional modules.

Hacky Solution

  • Read the main.rs and embed it in the generated lib.rs
  • Extract troublesome statements like inner attributes and macro_use and move them to top level.
  • Add pub to main.
  • Add path attribute so that child modules will be resolved.

Example:

// Inner attributes
#![no_std]
#![cfg_attr(
not(any(
feature = "example_feature"
)),
	allow(dead_code, unused_extern_crates, unused_imports)
)]

// macro_use attribute is only allowed at the crate root.
#[macro_use]
extern crate lazy_static;

#[path="../real/"]
mod example {
    mod child_mod;

    // pub added to main
    pub fn main() {
        child_mod::do_something();
    }
}

use example::*;

Proposed Solution - Create temporary file in user's source directory.

This solution is one I avoided experimenting with because it requires producing files outside of the target folder. However, it is the simplest. Because of is simplicity, it should be less fragile. I believe this solution should be implemented unless another one is proposed.

  • Read root module such as main.rs
  • Write it along with the current contents of cargo-apk's lib.rs to a temporary file in the same folder as main.rs.
  • Compile it.

Does anyone have thoughts about a better way to handle this case?
@mb64

@mb64
Copy link
Contributor

mb64 commented Aug 2, 2019

My understanding of how it used to work is that it would tell rustc to build an executable, then intercept the linker call and link a dynamic library instead (and link in all the extra stuff, such as android_native_app_glue). This worked, but with an ugly linker wrapper.

With #223, it makes a new file lib.rs (roughly replacing glue_obj.rs) that looks like

include!("/path/to/src/main.rs"); // Side note: I'm pleasantly surprised this resolves modules correctly

#[no_mangle]
pub extern "C" fn android_main(...) { /* stuff with main() */ }

and it tells rustc to compile this as a static library.

It would be possible to go back to intercepting linker calls. There might be a nicer way to do it than a wrapper executable; I'm not familiar with the Cargo library.

Aside from copying the whole source directory (which might be bad if things include!("../../file_outside_of_source_dir")), I think a temporary file in the source directory might be the best solution. As long as it gets deleted afterward, and it doesn't conflict with other files in the source directory, it won't have a real impact on users.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants