Document that `-C opt-level=0` implies `-C debug-assertions`.
I couldn't find it stated anywhere else (https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/codegen-options/index.html#opt-level).
It was a problem before here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39449, it got lost in the migration to the new documentation I assume.
On a sidenote: I think that `-C opt-level=0` having a sideeffect on another flag should be changed. Having compiler flags affecting others doesn't make much sense to me, they are used to fine tune anyway.
In any case, this plays no role in this PR.
docs(rustc): make hello() public
Running the example code [here](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/what-is-rustc.html#basic-usage) throws error:
```
error[E0603]: function `hello` is private
--> src/main.rs:4:10
|
4 | foo::hello();
| ^^^^^
```
Making `hello()` public fixes the problem.
This commit moves the linker-flavor flag from a debugging option to a
codegen option, thus stabilizing it. There are no feature flags
associated with this flag.
Making it consistent across the board, as most of them already use `$`.
Also split one continues bash run into two, to make it easier see
different runs: one with warning and another with error.
librustc_lint: In recursion warning, change 'recurring' to 'recursing'
The existing wording seems incorrect.
Aside: This warning, 'function cannot return without recursing' is not perfectly clear - it implies that the function _can_ return, it's just got to recurse. But really the fn cannot return period. Clearer wording: 'function recurses infinitely; it cannot return'; or 'function is infinitely self-recursive; it cannot return, and this is probably an error'. I like that.
