This can help with verifying that the crate is correctly handling conditional compilation for different target platforms or features. It ensures that the cfg settings are consistent between what is intended and what is used, helping to catch potential bugs or errors early in the development process.This can help with verifying that the crate is correctly handling conditional compilation for different target platforms or features. It ensures that the cfg settings are consistent between what is intended and what is used, helping to catch potential bugs or errors early in the development process.

The Automatic Checking of cfgs: How It Works

The Cargo and Compiler team are delighted to announce that starting with Rust 1.80 (or nightly-2024-05-05) every reachable #[cfg] will be automatically checked that they match the expected config names and values.

\ This can help with verifying that the crate is correctly handling conditional compilation for different target platforms or features. It ensures that the cfg settings are consistent between what is intended and what is used, helping to catch potential bugs or errors early in the development process.

\ This addresses a common pitfall for new and advanced users.

\ This is another step to our commitment to provide user-focused tooling and we are eager and excited to finally see it fixed, after more than two years since the original RFC 30131.

A look at the feature

Every time a Cargo feature is declared that feature is transformed into a config that is passed to rustc (the Rust compiler) so it can verify with it along with well known cfgs if any of the #[cfg], #![cfg_attr] and cfg! have unexpected configs and report a warning with the unexpected_cfgs lint.

Cargo.toml:

[package] name = "foo" [features] lasers = [] zapping = []

\ src/lib.rs:

#[cfg(feature = "lasers")] // This condition is expected // as "lasers" is an expected value // of the `feature` cfg fn shoot_lasers() {} #[cfg(feature = "monkeys")] // This condition is UNEXPECTED // as "monkeys" is NOT an expected // value of the `feature` cfg fn write_shakespeare() {} #[cfg(windosw)] // This condition is UNEXPECTED // it's supposed to be `windows` fn win() {}

\ cargo check:

Expecting custom cfgs

UPDATE: This section was added with the release of nightly-2024-05-19.

\ Some crates might use custom cfgs, like loom, fuzzing or tokio_unstable that they expected from the environment (RUSTFLAGS or other means) and which are always statically known at compile time. For those cases, Cargo provides via the [lints] table a way to statically declare those cfgs as expected.

\ Defining those custom cfgs as expected is done through the special check-cfg config under [lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs]:

Cargo.toml

[lints.rust] unexpected_cfgs = { level = "warn", check-cfg = ['cfg(loom)', 'cfg(fuzzing)'] }

Custom cfgs in build scripts

On the other hand some crates use custom cfgs that are enabled by some logic in the crate build.rs. For those crates Cargo provides a new instruction: cargo::rustc-check-cfg2 (or cargo:rustc-check-cfg for older Cargo version).

\ The syntax to use is described in the rustc book section checking configuration, but in a nutshell the basic syntax of --check-cfg is:

cfg(name, values("value1", "value2", ..., "valueN"))

\ Note that every custom cfgs must always be expected, regardless if the cfg is active or not!

build.rs example

build.rs:

fn main() { println!("cargo::rustc-check-cfg=cfg(has_foo)"); // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ new with Cargo 1.80 if has_foo() { println!("cargo::rustc-cfg=has_foo"); } }

Equivalence table

\ More details can be found in the rustc book.

Frequently asked questions

Can it be disabled?

For Cargo users, the feature is always on and cannot be disabled, but like any other lints it can be controlled: #![warn(unexpected_cfgs)].

Does the lint affect dependencies?

No, like most lints, unexpected_cfgs will only be reported for local packages thanks to cap-lints.

How does it interact with the RUSTFLAGS env?

You should be able to use the RUSTFLAGS environment variable like it was before. Currently --cfg arguments are not checked, only usage in code are.

\ This means that doing RUSTFLAGS="--cfg tokio_unstable" cargo check will not report any warnings, unless tokio_unstable is used within your local crates, in which case crate author will need to make sure that that custom cfg is expected with cargo::rustc-check-cfg in the build.rs of that crate.

How to expect custom cfgs without a build.rs?

UPDATE: Cargo with nightly-2024-05-19 now provides the [lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg] config to address the statically known custom cfgs.

\ There is currently no way to expect a custom cfg other than with cargo::rustc-check-cfg in a build.rs.

\ Crate authors that don't want to use a build.rs and cannot use [lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg], are encouraged to use Cargo features instead.

How does it interact with other build systems?

Non-Cargo based build systems are not affected by the lint by default. Build system authors that wish to have the same functionality should look at the rustc documentation for the --check-cfg flag for a detailed explanation of how to achieve the same functionality.

\

  1. The stabilized implementation and RFC 3013 diverge significantly, in particular there is only one form for --check-cfg: cfg() (instead of values() and names() being incomplete and subtlety incompatible with each other). ↩
  2. cargo::rustc-check-cfg will start working in Rust 1.80 (or nightly-2024-05-05). From Rust 1.77 to Rust 1.79 (inclusive) it is silently ignored. In Rust 1.76 and below a warning is emitted when used without the unstable Cargo flag -Zcheck-cfg. ↩

Urgau on behalf of The Cargo Team

\ Also published here

Market Opportunity
Centrifuge Logo
Centrifuge Price(CFG)
$0.1275
$0.1275$0.1275
0.00%
USD
Centrifuge (CFG) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

The post Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with a recent controversy surrounding a bold OpenVPP partnership claim. This week, OpenVPP (OVPP) announced what it presented as a significant collaboration with the U.S. government in the innovative field of energy tokenization. However, this claim quickly drew the sharp eye of on-chain analyst ZachXBT, who highlighted a swift and official rebuttal that has sent ripples through the digital asset community. What Sparked the OpenVPP Partnership Claim Controversy? The core of the issue revolves around OpenVPP’s assertion of a U.S. government partnership. This kind of collaboration would typically be a monumental endorsement for any private cryptocurrency project, especially given the current regulatory climate. Such a partnership could signify a new era of mainstream adoption and legitimacy for energy tokenization initiatives. OpenVPP initially claimed cooperation with the U.S. government. This alleged partnership was said to be in the domain of energy tokenization. The announcement generated considerable interest and discussion online. ZachXBT, known for his diligent on-chain investigations, was quick to flag the development. He brought attention to the fact that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce had directly addressed the OpenVPP partnership claim. Her response, delivered within hours, was unequivocal and starkly contradicted OpenVPP’s narrative. How Did Regulatory Authorities Respond to the OpenVPP Partnership Claim? Commissioner Hester Peirce’s statement was a crucial turning point in this unfolding story. She clearly stated that the SEC, as an agency, does not engage in partnerships with private cryptocurrency projects. This response effectively dismantled the credibility of OpenVPP’s initial announcement regarding their supposed government collaboration. Peirce’s swift clarification underscores a fundamental principle of regulatory bodies: maintaining impartiality and avoiding endorsements of private entities. Her statement serves as a vital reminder to the crypto community about the official stance of government agencies concerning private ventures. Moreover, ZachXBT’s analysis…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:13
XRP vs Ethereum Market Cap Flip Predicted as ETF Inflows Surge

XRP vs Ethereum Market Cap Flip Predicted as ETF Inflows Surge

The post XRP vs Ethereum Market Cap Flip Predicted as ETF Inflows Surge appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. XRP-linked ETFs secured $1B in net inflows, defying
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/20 21:47
BetFury is at SBC Summit Lisbon 2025: Affiliate Growth in Focus

BetFury is at SBC Summit Lisbon 2025: Affiliate Growth in Focus

The post BetFury is at SBC Summit Lisbon 2025: Affiliate Growth in Focus appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Press Releases are sponsored content and not a part of Finbold’s editorial content. For a full disclaimer, please . Crypto assets/products can be highly risky. Never invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. Curacao, Curacao, September 17th, 2025, Chainwire BetFury steps onto the stage of SBC Summit Lisbon 2025 — one of the key gatherings in the iGaming calendar. From 16 to 18 September, the platform showcases its brand strength, deepens affiliate connections, and outlines its plans for global expansion. BetFury continues to play a role in the evolving crypto and iGaming partnership landscape. BetFury’s Participation at SBC Summit The SBC Summit gathers over 25,000 delegates, including 6,000+ affiliates — the largest concentration of affiliate professionals in iGaming. For BetFury, this isn’t just visibility, it’s a strategic chance to present its Affiliate Program to the right audience. Face-to-face meetings, dedicated networking zones, and affiliate-focused sessions make Lisbon the ideal ground to build new partnerships and strengthen existing ones. BetFury Meets Affiliate Leaders at its Massive Stand BetFury arrives at the summit with a massive stand placed right in the center of the Affiliate zone. Designed as a true meeting hub, the stand combines large LED screens, a sleek interior, and the best coffee at the event — but its core mission goes far beyond style. Here, BetFury’s team welcomes partners and affiliates to discuss tailored collaborations, explore growth opportunities across multiple GEOs, and expand its global Affiliate Program. To make the experience even more engaging, the stand also hosts: Affiliate Lottery — a branded drum filled with exclusive offers and personalized deals for affiliates. Merch Kits — premium giveaways to boost brand recognition and leave visitors with a lasting conference memory. Besides, at SBC Summit Lisbon, attendees have a chance to meet the BetFury team along…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:20