svd-parser 0.11

[burrbull]

No description provided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @Emilgardis

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Emilgardis]

Could we try using --const-generics and --strict on everything as option in the feature matrix? Would increase CI but I think it's worth it

[burrbull]

Could we try using --const-generics and --strict on everything as option in the feature matrix? Would increase CI but I think it's worth it

Not all SVDs feel good with --strict. But we can maximize usage of these flags.
Could you fix issue with multiple flags? I'm not good in bash.

[Emilgardis]

Ill get to it later today CET

[Emilgardis]

Maybe just removing the bash script and completely use svd2rust-regress is a good thing to do as well. Not sure if that would be in the scope of this pr though.

[therealprof]

FWIW, looks good to me.

[Emilgardis]

https://github.com/rust-embedded/svd2rust/blob/69a869c06a5b171028b5cf04fd3a9d7e63b2c9d5/.github/bors.toml

needs to be changed, I'm not sure if we have a policy on how to gather multiple results and gate bors on it, but I'd prefer to have a workflow that needs: ci-linux

[Emilgardis]

for clarity, the try run shouldn't fail because of esp-rs/esp32#47 recently being merged

[Emilgardis]

ugh, changelog check is not ran on trying 🤷
bors try-

[Emilgardis]

bors try

testing the combined ci check

[bors]

try

Build succeeded:

• CI

[Emilgardis]

lgtm

leaving bors r=me for @burrbull, not sure if this is considered done, but looks to be to me

[burrbull]

bors r=Emilgardis

[bors]

Build succeeded:

• CI