Skip to content

docs.rs: set targets#57

Open
phip1611 wants to merge 2 commits intorust-osdev:mainfrom
phip1611:docsrs
Open

docs.rs: set targets#57
phip1611 wants to merge 2 commits intorust-osdev:mainfrom
phip1611:docsrs

Conversation

@phip1611
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@phip1611 phip1611 commented Apr 8, 2026

Make sure we build the docs for a variety of targets. Technically, the
doc is the same for every target; this way - however - we can better
indicate that this crate is indeed compatible with every platform.

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/04/04/docsrs-only-default-targets/

phip1611 added 2 commits April 8, 2026 09:46
Make sure we build the docs for a variety of targets. Technically, the
doc is the same for every target; this way - however - we can better
indicate that this crate is indeed compatible with every platform.

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2026/04/04/docsrs-only-default-targets/
@phip1611 phip1611 requested a review from mkroening April 8, 2026 07:46
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@phil-opp phil-opp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! Nice that we can build directly for the supported none targets.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mkroening mkroening left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes themselves look good to me.

I am not sure whether this would go against the intent of the change you linked:

Most crates do not compile different code for different targets, so building fewer targets by default is a better fit for most releases. It also reduces build times and saves resources on docs.rs.

As this crate only removes code on non-x86, it might be sensible to only build docs for x86_64-unknown-none and let doc_cfg do the rest, as it currently does already.

To achieve the goal of indicating that every target is supported, maybe the current docs are highlighting this enough already.

This is just my gut feeling, though. You are welcome to go ahead with this anyway if you feel differently. :)

@phip1611
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

phip1611 commented Apr 8, 2026

Makes sense! thanks for your input, Martin!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants