rustdoc: Nuke `--passes=list` and defossilize the passes infrastructure by fmease · Pull Request #146529 · rust-lang/rust

fmease · 2025-09-14T00:29:51Z

--passes and --no-defaults were deprecated and made noops years ago except that --passes list still prints all passes in a human-readable format as if users could still somehow make use of that information. Removing this useless functionality allows for some small simplifications (and longer term, it would enable us to further rewrite the way we represent internal passes w/o having to worry about it possibly affecting the CLI).

Given that the output of --passes list is clearly meant for human consumption only (I mean, just look at it), I hold the opinion that this removal doesn't need an FCP. And even if there were scripts somewhere out there that try to parse this output I think it would be okay to break them.

rustbot · 2025-09-14T00:29:55Z

r? @GuillaumeGomez

rustbot has assigned @GuillaumeGomez.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

fmease · 2025-09-27T14:10:18Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

rustdoc: Nuke `--passes=list`

rust-bors · 2025-09-27T16:22:12Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 219856d (219856d425ad6f2141b51eb0b9b957d0a98bbb8d, parent: ade84871f718ea20a6460d28e82290353b4bf3d2)

rust-timer · 2025-09-27T17:32:35Z

Finished benchmarking commit (219856d): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (primary 2.2%, secondary -0.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.4%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 469.268s -> 472.628s (0.72%)
Artifact size: 388.12 MiB -> 388.15 MiB (0.01%)

fmease · 2025-11-30T16:03:22Z

@bors rollup-

fmease · 2025-11-30T16:27:54Z

ready

Sign in to view

+pub(crate) mod strip_priv_imports;
+pub(crate) mod strip_private;
+
+macro_rules! initialize {


rustbot · 2026-08-24T17:44:16Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-08-24T20:32:29Z

Nice work!

@bors r+ rollup

rust-bors · 2026-08-24T20:32:31Z

📌 Commit f1acecf has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

…=GuillaumeGomez rustdoc: Nuke `--passes=list` and defossilize the passes infrastructure `--passes` and `--no-defaults` were deprecated and made noops years ago except that `--passes list` still prints all passes in a human-readable format as if users could still somehow make use of that information. Removing this useless functionality allows for some small simplifications (and longer term, it would enable us to further rewrite the way we represent internal passes w/o having to worry about it possibly affecting the CLI). Given that the output of `--passes list` is *clearly* meant for human consumption only (I mean, just look at it), I hold the opinion that this removal doesn't need an FCP. And even if there were scripts somewhere out there that try to parse this output I think it would be okay to break them.

Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #161689 (bootstrap: don't LTO C dependencies on aarch64) - #161553 (rustdoc: fix issue preventing "read more" links from generating.) - #161670 (Pass LargeDataThreshold to LLVM module IR) - #146529 (rustdoc: Nuke `--passes=list` and defossilize the passes infrastructure) - #156009 (Check `redundant_explicit_links` against generated URLs) - #159583 (Add new `invalid_markdown_table` rustdoc lint) - #161098 (PassWrapper: handle LLVM 24 change in function types) - #161641 (Check for missing rustfmt in the stdarch intrinsic test step sooner) - #161661 (Don't treat slashes as path seps after drive letters in verbatim paths) Failed merges: - #156749 (remove `box_patterns`)

Rollup merge of #146529 - fmease:rustdoc-nuke-passes-list, r=GuillaumeGomez rustdoc: Nuke `--passes=list` and defossilize the passes infrastructure `--passes` and `--no-defaults` were deprecated and made noops years ago except that `--passes list` still prints all passes in a human-readable format as if users could still somehow make use of that information. Removing this useless functionality allows for some small simplifications (and longer term, it would enable us to further rewrite the way we represent internal passes w/o having to worry about it possibly affecting the CLI). Given that the output of `--passes list` is *clearly* meant for human consumption only (I mean, just look at it), I hold the opinion that this removal doesn't need an FCP. And even if there were scripts somewhere out there that try to parse this output I think it would be okay to break them.

rust-timer · 2026-08-25T07:28:55Z

Note

This PR was benchmarked as part of triage of its containing rollup: triage URL.

Finished benchmarking commit (51502e8): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 7.2%, secondary 5.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	7.2%	[7.2%, 7.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.3%	[5.3%, 5.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	7.2%	[7.2%, 7.2%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary -3.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	79
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	66
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	79

Bootstrap: 471.419s -> 467.492s (-0.83%)
Artifact size: 400.34 MiB -> 400.23 MiB (-0.03%)

rustbot assigned GuillaumeGomez Sep 14, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 14, 2025

Urgau reviewed Sep 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/librustdoc/passes/calculate_doc_coverage.rs Outdated

fmease marked this pull request as draft September 27, 2025 14:09

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2025

Auto merge of #146529 - fmease:rustdoc-nuke-passes-list, r=<try>

219856d

rustdoc: Nuke `--passes=list`

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 27, 2025

fmease changed the title ~~rustdoc: Nuke --passes=list~~ rustdoc: Nuke --passes=list and the legacy passes infrastructure Sep 27, 2025

fmease changed the title ~~rustdoc: Nuke --passes=list and the legacy passes infrastructure~~ rustdoc: Nuke --passes=list and defossilize the passes infrastructure Sep 27, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 27, 2025

fmease mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2025

rustdoc: Fix passes order so intra-doc links are collected after stripping passes #147809

Merged

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from 18dcad6 to 6d77797 Compare November 30, 2025 15:41

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from 6d77797 to 583eef5 Compare November 30, 2025 16:26

fmease marked this pull request as ready for review November 30, 2025 16:27

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Nov 30, 2025

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from 583eef5 to 188271b Compare November 30, 2025 21:38

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from 188271b to fac4ce0 Compare November 30, 2025 22:00

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from 7a0a82c to d3d804e Compare December 28, 2025 22:51

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

fmease commented Dec 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/librustdoc/passes/mod.rs Outdated

pub(crate) mod strip_priv_imports;

pub(crate) mod strip_private;

macro_rules! initialize {

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from d3d804e to 843ac4a Compare June 9, 2026 09:58

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

fmease force-pushed the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch from 843ac4a to f1acecf Compare August 24, 2026 17:44

fmease requested a review from GuillaumeGomez August 24, 2026 17:44

fmease added 2 commits August 24, 2026 19:45

rustdoc: Nuke --passes=list

a83329a

rustdoc: Defossilize the passes infrastructure

f1acecf

fmease added the C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. label Aug 24, 2026

GuillaumeGomez approved these changes Aug 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

rust-bors Bot added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 24, 2026

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Aug 24, 2026

Rollup of 8 pull requests #161700

Closed

This was referenced Aug 24, 2026

Rollup of 10 pull requests #161704

Closed

Rollup of 9 pull requests #161706

Merged

rust-bors Bot merged commit c270415 into rust-lang:main Aug 25, 2026
13 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.100.0 milestone Aug 25, 2026

fmease deleted the rustdoc-nuke-passes-list branch August 25, 2026 01:42

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

fmease commented Sep 14, 2025 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fmease commented Sep 27, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Sep 27, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Sep 27, 2025

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Uh oh!

fmease commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

fmease commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rustbot commented Aug 24, 2026

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Aug 24, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented Aug 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Aug 25, 2026

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

fmease commented Sep 14, 2025 •

edited by rustbot

Loading