Internally storing profiles as special-cased booleans

[kornelski]

I wanted to fix a pet peeve of mine (cargo bench reports it finished building a "release" profile when it actually used a "bench" profile), and found that it's not straightforward to do:

1. Cargo doesn't use a reference to the Profile object to track which profile was used,
2. and profiles.bench is not returned by lib_profile() used in the end condition of drain_the_queue() (that seems like a bug stemming from lack of (1).)

The profile setting appears to be spread over booleans in Context, BuildConfig and global-ish Profile objects. In some places Cargo uses a set of flags to "guess" what profile was used (Context::lib_profile()) instead of keeping a reference to an actual Profile object used. In other places all profile information is reduced to a single boolean flag if self.is_release { "release" } else { "dev" }.

I've got a hunch that these multiple boolean flags spread throughout the code are a source of needless complexity and quirks (like the "test" and "bench" profiles vaguely overlapping with identity of "dev" and "release" profiles).

I would like to refactor it, but I'd like your guidance whether it makes sense and how it should be implemented.

Existence of lib_profile()/lib_or_check_profile()/build_script_profile() makes me think that there are actually two distinct concepts of a "profile" in Cargo:

• One that describes a high-level user choice (a combination of --release flag and TargetKind) — the "what are we building" part

• and the other kind that just describes low-level compiler settings (for compiling lib, deps, build.rs) — the "how" part.

Currently the first kind is represented by booleans in Context, BuildConfig (release,is_release,check) and Profile (test/check/doc), and the second kind is the remainder of the Profile struct (opt_level/rustc_args, etc.).

I'd like to replace most code in form let foo = if profile.foo { this } else { that } with let foo = profile.foo().

I'm thinking about refactoring it this way:

• Make a ProfileSelection object (it's not a great name, bikeshedding welcome) that represents the high-level profile chosen by the user (one that corresponds to profile names from Cargo.toml: "dev","release","bench", etc.). It would be a single object for the whole build that encapsulates all the booleans based on the --release flag, subcommand, target, etc.

• Remove the test, doc and check fields of Profile and turn it into a "dumb" anonymous collection of settings for rustc. Probably rename it to ProfileSettings.

• Make ProfileSelection know how to create appropriately-configured instance of ProfileSettings for each part of the build (lib_profile()/lib_or_check_profile()/build_script_profile()). It'll probably replace or encapsulate the Profiles (plural) type as well.

• Replace all uses BuildConfig.release/.test, fn generate_targets(release: bool) with an instance of ProfileSelection or ProfileSettings as appropriate.

Does that make sense? Will that work?

I haven't looked closely at Workspaces yet. Are there any complications there?

Anything else that I'm missing?

[alexcrichton]

Yeah the implementation of profiles in cargo I feel like definitely haven't stood well to the test of time, and refactoring would be most welcome! There's lots of trickery to how the profiles are handled but I think it's accurate to say that we attempted to interpret requests on the command line to translate to intermediate structures. These structures though are then reinterpreted to extract the original command line request in a bunch of places which creates this sort of ad-hoc behavior.

I think that the direction you're going in sounds great. Basically bundle up the actual request (what's going on) and then just interpret that at all the relevant locations (with methods ideally, not duplicated logic).

I believe that @matklad was thinking about the design of profiles lately as well, so he may wish to chime in as well!

[matklad]

Yeah, I've been thinking about profiles quite a bit, but without a definitive conclusion. I'll dump my current thoughts here then, don't expect to find a lot of structure :)

The biggest problem with profiles imo is not the implantation, but the fact that almost nobody understands which profile is activated when. For example, cargo test will build the [lib] crate of the package with dev profile, the [test] crates with test profile (and link it with the dev [lib]), and then it will build [lib] again in test profile for unit tests! Logically, cargo test --release builds everything in bench profile.

This in turn makes all features which should interact with profiles difficult to implement. Examples of such features are "custom profiles", "always build deps with optimizations", "select feature flags based on profiles".

I would say that we basically need profiles 2.0 in Cargo :), but I have only vague ideas how they should look like :(

Fundamentally, profile is a function which maps each crate in the DAG of dependencies to "auxilary" compiler command line flags.

The great things about current systems are:

• not exposing the raw compiler flags to the user

• --release switch

• reasonable defaults (though we maybe want to compile depedencies with some optimizations even in dev mode)

The bad things about current system:

• there's no single profile for the compilation. During test especially, different parts of the code compile with different profiles.

• profiles expose to much. There shouldn't be a test profile ideally, you should be able to run tests or application itself both in dev and in release mode, at least by default.

• you can't specify arbitrary function (for example, for per-package profiles inside a worksapce, or for always building a specific dependency with all optimizations).

So, for profiles 2.0 I think we first of all need some sort of toml DSL to specify functions from crates to command line flags. Then, we need some kind of mechanism to select which function is used for the current compilation. Certainly, we need to preserve --release flag as way to do this. We should drop test, doc, bench and other obscure profiles altogether. So that leaves us with just two default profiles: dev and release. For anything else, you probably can create a custom profile.

There's also a desire to be able to influence downstream profiles from a library. For example, if I write a library which is very slow without optimizations, I would like to be able to say "compile this library with optimizations even in dev profile". Not sure how this should interact with custom profiles though.

cc @rust-lang/cargo

[ehuss]

I'm going to close as profiles were rewritten in 2018. The final "Finished" line still may not be completely accurate due to overrides, but that is unavoidable and would require rethinking what to display there.