fix(trim-paths)!: limit options to `none|object|all` by weihanglo · Pull Request #17432 · rust-lang/cargo

weihanglo · 2026-09-03T15:36:34Z

What does this PR try to resolve?

This limits profile trim-paths options to only none, object, and all.
For other scopes and boolean values, we can add it in the future when needed.

This is a stabilization preparation for -Ztrim-paths.
See #12137 (comment).

How to test and review this PR?

Also rewrote the profile trim-paths doc a bit but not extremely satisfied.
Please help proofread.

rustbot · 2026-09-03T15:36:41Z

r? @epage

rustbot has assigned @epage.
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

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

Owners of files modified in this PR: @epage, @weihanglo
@epage, @weihanglo expanded to epage, weihanglo

epage · 2026-09-03T16:57:43Z

+    > [!NOTE]
+    > For forward compatibility,
+    > build scripts should accept a comma-separated list of scopes.
 * `CARGO_TRIM_PATHS_REMAP` --- The `<from>=<to>` path remap pairs Cargo passes to the compiler,


Aside: do we support this yet in build-rs?

View changes since the review

Sure! I am still thinking about a reasonable API.

My hope is that popular helper build dep dependencies use them, like cc-rs which already supports. Application build scripts likely don't need this. cc-rs likely has covered 95% of the use cases (including cmake-rs which takes cc-rs as a dependency).

Tracked in #12137

epage · 2026-09-03T16:58:48Z

-`trim-paths` is a profile setting which enables and controls the sanitization of file paths in build outputs.
-It takes the following values:
-
- `"none"` --- disable path sanitization
- `"macro"` --- sanitize paths in the expansion of `std::file!()` macro.
-    This is where paths in embedded panic messages come from
- `"diagnostics"` --- sanitize paths in printed compiler diagnostics
- `"object"` --- sanitize paths in compiled executables or libraries
- `"all"` --- sanitize paths in all possible locations
+The `trim-paths` option controls path sanitization in build outputs.
+It uses rustc's [`--remap-path-scope`] to control the scope where paths are sanitized,
+while Cargo supplies the path-prefix mappings described in the [remapping rules].

-It also takes an array with the combinations of `"macro"`, `"diagnostics"`, and `"object"`.
+The valid options are `"none"`, `"object"`, and `"all"`.
+`"none"` disables sanitization.
+The other values select the corresponding rustc remapping scope.


This looks like we are removing the docs that distinguish between object and all

View changes since the review

I tried to minimize this to avoid duplicating docs on rustc side. Oour profile doc is mixed. For strip and split-debuginfo we don't have docs for each, while for debug and opt-level we do enumerate them. Do you think this worth explicit docs and also talking about use cases in Cargo doc?

Okay, after reading other comments

fix(trim-paths)!: limit options to none|object|all #17432 (comment)

fix(trim-paths)!: limit options to none|object|all #17432 (comment)

I think we should have some minimal docs for each options, which I think can address most of doc issues.

Updated. I hope that clarifies things.

epage · 2026-09-03T16:59:31Z

-    This is where paths in embedded panic messages come from
- `"diagnostics"` --- sanitize paths in printed compiler diagnostics
- `"object"` --- sanitize paths in compiled executables or libraries
- `"all"` --- sanitize paths in all possible locations


Does r-a or any other tool need a heads up that with all, diagnostics won't point to valid files?

View changes since the review

We should document issue and perhaps put a warning as precaution. And yes good idea when stabilizing we should let tool authors know about it

epage · 2026-09-03T17:00:18Z

+while Cargo supplies the path-prefix mappings described in the [remapping rules].

-It also takes an array with the combinations of `"macro"`, `"diagnostics"`, and `"object"`.
+The valid options are `"none"`, `"object"`, and `"all"`.


If we're looking to drop things, what are the use cases for having both object and all?

View changes since the review

object, like you have mentioned, preserves certain debuggability and local development experience.

all is more fore hermetic builds to sanitize as many locations as possible. One of the biggest difference is metadata output. Metadadta in in dylib and proc-macors are only remapped in the all scope. When I test this with some caching service, without remapping all for proc-macros, the artifact checksum mismatches and cache missed. See rust-lang/rust#159621

See <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/246057-t-cargo/topic/stabilization.20plan.20for.20.60-Ztrim-paths.60/near/621134225>

rustbot · 2026-09-03T18:55:10Z

This PR was rebased onto a different master 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.

Update cargo submodule 9 commits in b2e9d5f9db3fb1c454ab84f10c16508984a266e2..3c0b534756e166d12eb9fd2e1abfe5b42ac6101e 2026-09-02 14:49:16 +0000 to 2026-09-04 17:03:10 +0000 - fix(trim-paths)!: limit options to `none|object|all` (rust-lang/cargo#17432) - fix(git): Apply pr hint to git-fetch-with-cli (rust-lang/cargo#17437) - fix(git): Make PR dep note cloer to our style guide (rust-lang/cargo#17436) - docs: clarify cargo vendor source config option (rust-lang/cargo#17435) - docs(trim-paths): workspace remap begins with `.` (rust-lang/cargo#17433) - docs: Switch from "target triple" to "target tuple" (rust-lang/cargo#17430) - docs(trim-paths): add limitations and polish (rust-lang/cargo#17425) - fix(git): Simplify error message (rust-lang/cargo#17429) - chore(deps): update rust crate base64 to 0.23.0 (rust-lang/cargo#17418)

weihanglo added the Z-trim-paths Nightly: path sanitization label Sep 3, 2026

rustbot assigned epage Sep 3, 2026

rustbot added A-documenting-cargo-itself Area: Cargo's documentation A-manifest Area: Cargo.toml issues S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 3, 2026

weihanglo mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2026

Tracking Issue for trim-paths RFC 3127 #12137

Open

19 tasks

epage reviewed Sep 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

weihanglo added 3 commits September 3, 2026 14:55

fix(trim-paths)!: remove boolean profile values

c4cec46

See <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/246057-t-cargo/topic/stabilization.20plan.20for.20.60-Ztrim-paths.60/near/621134225>

chore: bump cargo-util-schemas to 0.15.0

d7c51f0

fix(trim-paths)!: limit options to none|object|all

a966ddc

weihanglo force-pushed the only-object-scope branch from c72071f to 0480619 Compare September 3, 2026 18:55

docs(trim-paths)!: limit options to none|object|all

e7c7688

weihanglo force-pushed the only-object-scope branch from 0480619 to e7c7688 Compare September 3, 2026 19:02

epage approved these changes Sep 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

epage added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 4, 2026

Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit 3c0b534 Sep 4, 2026
30 checks passed

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Sep 4, 2026

weihanglo deleted the only-object-scope branch September 4, 2026 17:44

weihanglo mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2026

Update cargo submodule rust-lang/rust#162314

Merged

rustbot added this to the 1.100.0 milestone Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

weihanglo commented Sep 3, 2026

What does this PR try to resolve?

How to test and review this PR?

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 3, 2026

Uh oh!

epage Sep 3, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

epage Sep 3, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

epage Sep 3, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

epage Sep 3, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

weihanglo Sep 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

epage Sep 3, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

epage Sep 3, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

epage Sep 3, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

epage Sep 3, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading