From bb3af49886d33fd9f3d5134449127c5b24ec54d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Urgau <urgau@numericable.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 13:20:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Include `lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg` into the
 fingerprint

---
 src/cargo/core/compiler/fingerprint/mod.rs | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/testsuite/check_cfg.rs               |  9 +++++---
 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/cargo/core/compiler/fingerprint/mod.rs b/src/cargo/core/compiler/fingerprint/mod.rs
index f22d4a9ed974..9319d2ee814b 100644
--- a/src/cargo/core/compiler/fingerprint/mod.rs
+++ b/src/cargo/core/compiler/fingerprint/mod.rs
@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@
 //! config settings[^5]                        | ✓           |
 //! is_std                                     |             | ✓
 //! `[lints]` table[^6]                        | ✓           |
+//! `[lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg]`   | ✓           |
 //!
 //! [^1]: Build script and bin dependencies are not included.
 //!
@@ -1420,12 +1421,36 @@ fn calculate_normal(
     }
     .to_vec();
 
+    // Include all the args from `[lints.rust.unexpected_cfgs.check-cfg]`
+    //
+    // FIXME(Urgau): move this lookup directly in `toml::lints_to_rustflags`
+    // when check-cfg support is no longer gated, so that when calling
+    // `Manifest::lint_rustflags` we get those arguments for free
+    // (ie. without having to manually retrive the lint config here).
+    let mut lint_check_cfg = Vec::new();
+    if let Ok(Some(lints)) = unit.pkg.manifest().resolved_toml().resolved_lints() {
+        if let Some(rust_lints) = lints.get("rust") {
+            if let Some(unexpected_cfgs) = rust_lints.get("unexpected_cfgs") {
+                if let Some(config) = unexpected_cfgs.config() {
+                    if let Some(check_cfg) = config.get("check-cfg") {
+                        if let Ok(check_cfgs) =
+                            toml::Value::try_into::<Vec<String>>(check_cfg.clone())
+                        {
+                            lint_check_cfg = check_cfgs;
+                        }
+                    }
+                }
+            }
+        }
+    }
+
     let profile_hash = util::hash_u64((
         &unit.profile,
         unit.mode,
         build_runner.bcx.extra_args_for(unit),
         build_runner.lto[unit],
         unit.pkg.manifest().lint_rustflags(),
+        lint_check_cfg,
     ));
     // Include metadata since it is exposed as environment variables.
     let m = unit.pkg.manifest().metadata();
diff --git a/tests/testsuite/check_cfg.rs b/tests/testsuite/check_cfg.rs
index fc0bf6ca3d43..d01a731bf251 100644
--- a/tests/testsuite/check_cfg.rs
+++ b/tests/testsuite/check_cfg.rs
@@ -851,8 +851,7 @@ fn config_fingerprint() {
         .with_stderr_does_not_contain("[..]rustc[..]")
         .run();
 
-    // checking that changing the `-check-cfg` config does not invalid the fingerprint
-    // FIXME: This should change the fingerprint
+    // checking that changing the `check-cfg` config does invalid the fingerprint
     p.change_file(
         "Cargo.toml",
         r#"
@@ -867,6 +866,10 @@ fn config_fingerprint() {
     );
 
     p.cargo("check -v")
-        .with_stderr_does_not_contain("[..]rustc[..]")
+        // we check that the fingerprint is indeed dirty
+        .with_stderr_contains("[..]Dirty[..]the profile configuration changed")
+        // that cause rustc to be called again with the new check-cfg args
+        .with_stderr_contains(x!("rustc" => "cfg" of "bar"))
+        .with_stderr_contains(x!("rustc" => "cfg" of "foo"))
         .run();
 }