default_alloc_error_hook: explain difference to default __rdl_oom in alloc#124059
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom May 3, 2024
Merged
default_alloc_error_hook: explain difference to default __rdl_oom in alloc#124059bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Member
Author
|
Hm, actually there is a subtle difference in behavior... currently the default path taken does not invoke any user-defined code. That seems worth preserving for now. I'll change the PR to just add a comment instead. |
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
default_alloc_error_hook
branch
from
3efa247 to
b5ec268
Compare
RalfJung
changed the title
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
default_alloc_error_hook
branch
from
b5ec268 to
cb13c4d
Compare
Member
Author
|
r? libs |
library/std/src/alloc.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
357
to
358
| // Crucially, it does *not* call any user-defined code, and therefore there are no potential | ||
| // reentrancy issues. That makes it different from the default `__rdl_oom` defined in alloc. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no potential reentrancy issues.
innit more like "no potential reentrancy issues aside from the ones we foist on ourselves"?
__rdl_oom is an awfully descriptive name, congratulations on us for coming up with that one.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You describe two possible differences, and either of those can independently vary, technically. You should note that __rdl_oom calls like handle_alloc_error() or whatever it actually does.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have tried to clarify both of these points, does that help?
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
default_alloc_error_hook
branch
from
cb13c4d to
3f6703b
Compare
Member
|
@bors r+ rollup |
Collaborator
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
workingjubilee
added a commit
to workingjubilee/rustc
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2024
… r=workingjubilee default_alloc_error_hook: explain difference to default __rdl_oom in alloc Though I'm not sure if that is really the reason that this code is duplicated. On no_std it may already be possible to call user-defined code on allocation failure.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2024
… r=workingjubilee default_alloc_error_hook: explain difference to default __rdl_oom in alloc Though I'm not sure if that is really the reason that this code is duplicated. On no_std it may already be possible to call user-defined code on allocation failure.
This was referenced May 3, 2024
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#122492 (Implement ptr_as_ref_unchecked) - rust-lang#123815 (Fix cannot usage in time.rs) - rust-lang#124059 (default_alloc_error_hook: explain difference to default __rdl_oom in alloc) - rust-lang#124510 (Add raw identifier in a typo suggestion) - rust-lang#124555 (coverage: Clean up creation of MC/DC condition bitmaps) - rust-lang#124593 (Describe and use CStr literals in CStr and CString docs) - rust-lang#124630 (CI: remove `env-x86_64-apple-tests` YAML anchor) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#124059 - RalfJung:default_alloc_error_hook, r=workingjubilee default_alloc_error_hook: explain difference to default __rdl_oom in alloc Though I'm not sure if that is really the reason that this code is duplicated. On no_std it may already be possible to call user-defined code on allocation failure.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Though I'm not sure if that is really the reason that this code is duplicated. On no_std it may already be possible to call user-defined code on allocation failure.