# `check-cfg`

The tracking issue for this feature is: [#82450](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82450).

------------------------

This feature allows you to enable complete or partial checking of configuration.

`rustc` accepts the `--check-cfg` option, which specifies whether to check conditions and how to
check them. The `--check-cfg` option takes a value, called the _check cfg specification_. The
check cfg specification is parsed using the Rust metadata syntax, just as the `--cfg` option is.

`--check-cfg` option take one form:

1. `--check-cfg cfg(...)` enables checking the values within list-valued conditions.

NOTE: No implicit expectation is added when using `--cfg` for both forms. Users are expected to
pass all expected names and values using `cfg(...)`.

## The `cfg(...)` form

The `cfg(...)` form enables checking the values within list-valued conditions. It has this
basic form:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN, values("value1", "value2", ... "valueN"))'
```

where `name` is a bare identifier (has no quotes) and each `"value"` term is a quoted literal
string. `name` specifies the name of the condition, such as `feature` or `my_cfg`.

When the `cfg(...)` option is specified, `rustc` will check every `#[cfg(name = "value")]`
attribute, `#[cfg_attr(name = "value")]` attribute, `#[link(name = "a", cfg(name = "value"))]`
and `cfg!(name = "value")` call. It will check that the `"value"` specified is present in the
list of expected values. If `"value"` is not in it, then `rustc` will report an `unexpected_cfgs`
lint diagnostic. The default diagnostic level for this lint is `Warn`.

To enable checking of values, but to provide an empty set of expected values, use these forms:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN)'
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN, values())'
```

To enable checking of name but not values (i.e. unknown expected values), use this form:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN, values(any()))'
```

The `--check-cfg cfg(...)` option can be repeated, both for the same condition name and for
different names. If it is repeated for the same condition name, then the sets of values for that
condition are merged together (presedence is given to `any()`).

## Well known names and values

`rustc` has a internal list of well known names and their corresponding values.
Those well known names and values follows the same stability as what they refer to.

Well known values checking is always enabled as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present.

Well known names checking is always enable as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present
**unless** any `cfg(any())` argument is passed.

To disable checking of well known names, use this form:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(any())'
```

NOTE: If one want to enable values and names checking without having any cfg to declare, one
can use an empty `cfg()` argument.

## Examples

Consider this command line:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(feature, values("lion", "zebra"))' \
      --cfg 'feature="lion"' -Z unstable-options \
      example.rs
```

This command line indicates that this crate has two features: `lion` and `zebra`. The `lion`
feature is enabled, while the `zebra` feature is disabled. Exhaustive checking of names and
values are enabled by default. Consider compiling this code:

```rust
// This is expected, and tame_lion() will be compiled
#[cfg(feature = "lion")]
fn tame_lion(lion: Lion) {}

// This is expected, and ride_zebra() will NOT be compiled.
#[cfg(feature = "zebra")]
fn ride_zebra(zebra: Zebra) {}

// This is UNEXPECTED, and will cause a compiler warning (by default).
#[cfg(feature = "platypus")]
fn poke_platypus() {}

// This is UNEXPECTED, because 'feechure' is not a known condition name,
// and will cause a compiler warning (by default).
#[cfg(feechure = "lion")]
fn tame_lion() {}

// This is UNEXPECTED, because 'windows' is a well known condition name,
// and because 'windows' doens't take any values,
// and will cause a compiler warning (by default).
#[cfg(windows = "unix")]
fn tame_windows() {}
```

### Example: Checking condition names, but not values

```bash
# This turns on checking for condition names, but not values, such as 'feature' values.
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(is_embedded, has_feathers, values(any()))' \
      --cfg has_feathers -Z unstable-options
```

```rust
#[cfg(is_embedded)]         // This is expected as "is_embedded" was provided in cfg()
fn do_embedded() {}         // and because names exhaustiveness was not disabled

#[cfg(has_feathers)]        // This is expected as "has_feathers" was provided in cfg()
fn do_features() {}         // and because names exhaustiveness was not disabled

#[cfg(has_feathers = "zapping")] // This is expected as "has_feathers" was provided in cfg()
                                 // and because no value checking was enable for "has_feathers"
                                 // no warning is emitted for the value "zapping"
fn do_zapping() {}

#[cfg(has_mumble_frotz)]    // This is UNEXPECTED because names checking is enable and
                            // "has_mumble_frotz" was not provided in cfg()
fn do_mumble_frotz() {}
```

### Example: Checking feature values, but not condition names

```bash
# This turns on checking for feature values, but not for condition names.
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(feature, values("zapping", "lasers"))' \
      --check-cfg 'cfg(any())' \
      --cfg 'feature="zapping"' -Z unstable-options
```

```rust
#[cfg(is_embedded)]         // This is doesn't raise a warning, because names checking was
                            // disabled by 'cfg(any())'
fn do_embedded() {}

#[cfg(has_feathers)]        // Same as above, 'cfg(any())' was provided so no name
                            // checking is performed
fn do_features() {}

#[cfg(feature = "lasers")]  // This is expected, "lasers" is in the cfg(feature) list
fn shoot_lasers() {}

#[cfg(feature = "monkeys")] // This is UNEXPECTED, because "monkeys" is not in the
                            // cfg(feature) list
fn write_shakespeare() {}
```

### Example: Checking both condition names and feature values

```bash
# This turns on checking for feature values and for condition names.
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(is_embedded, has_feathers)' \
      --check-cfg 'cfg(feature, values("zapping", "lasers"))' \
      --cfg has_feathers --cfg 'feature="zapping"' -Z unstable-options
```

```rust
#[cfg(is_embedded)]         // This is expected because "is_embedded" was provided in cfg()
fn do_embedded() {}         // and doesn't take any value

#[cfg(has_feathers)]        // This is expected because "has_feathers" was provided in cfg()
fn do_features() {}         // and deosn't take any value

#[cfg(has_mumble_frotz)]    // This is UNEXPECTED, because "has_mumble_frotz" was never provided
fn do_mumble_frotz() {}

#[cfg(feature = "lasers")]  // This is expected, "lasers" is in the cfg(feature) list
fn shoot_lasers() {}

#[cfg(feature = "monkeys")] // This is UNEXPECTED, because "monkeys" is not in
                            // the cfg(feature) list
fn write_shakespeare() {}
```

## The deprecated `names(...)` form

The `names(...)` form enables checking the names. This form uses a named list:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'names(name1, name2, ... nameN)'
```

where each `name` is a bare identifier (has no quotes). The order of the names is not significant.

If `--check-cfg names(...)` is specified at least once, then `rustc` will check all references to
condition names. `rustc` will check every `#[cfg]` attribute, `#[cfg_attr]` attribute, `cfg` clause
inside `#[link]` attribute and `cfg!(...)` call against the provided list of expected condition
names. If a name is not present in this list, then `rustc` will report an `unexpected_cfgs` lint
diagnostic. The default diagnostic level for this lint is `Warn`.

If `--check-cfg names(...)` is not specified, then `rustc` will not check references to condition
names.

`--check-cfg names(...)` may be specified more than once. The result is that the list of valid
condition names is merged across all options. It is legal for a condition name to be specified
more than once; redundantly specifying a condition name has no effect.

To enable checking condition names with an empty set of valid condition names, use the following
form. The parentheses are required.

```bash
rustc --check-cfg 'names()'
```

Note that `--check-cfg 'names()'` is _not_ equivalent to omitting the option entirely.
The first form enables checking condition names, while specifying that there are no valid
condition names (outside of the set of well-known names defined by `rustc`). Omitting the
`--check-cfg 'names(...)'` option does not enable checking condition names.

## The deprecated `values(...)` form

The `values(...)` form enables checking the values within list-valued conditions. It has this
form:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg `values(name, "value1", "value2", ... "valueN")'
```

where `name` is a bare identifier (has no quotes) and each `"value"` term is a quoted literal
string. `name` specifies the name of the condition, such as `feature` or `target_os`.

When the `values(...)` option is specified, `rustc` will check every `#[cfg(name = "value")]`
attribute, `#[cfg_attr(name = "value")]` attribute, `#[link(name = "a", cfg(name = "value"))]`
and `cfg!(name = "value")` call. It will check that the `"value"` specified is present in the
list of expected values. If `"value"` is not in it, then `rustc` will report an `unexpected_cfgs`
lint diagnostic. The default diagnostic level for this lint is `Warn`.

To enable checking of values, but to provide an empty set of valid values, use this form:

```bash
rustc --check-cfg `values(name)`
```

The `--check-cfg values(...)` option can be repeated, both for the same condition name and for
different names. If it is repeated for the same condition name, then the sets of values for that
condition are merged together.

If `values()` is specified, then `rustc` will enable the checking of well-known values defined
by itself. Note that it's necessary to specify the `values()` form to enable the checking of
well known values, specifying the other forms doesn't implicitly enable it.
