split MaybeUninit into several features, expand docs a bit#58468
Merged
bors merged 2 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom Feb 17, 2019
Merged
split MaybeUninit into several features, expand docs a bit#58468bors merged 2 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
bors merged 2 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
|
r? @shepmaster (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Closed
3 tasks
Centril
reviewed
Feb 14, 2019
Contributor
Centril
left a comment
Centril
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM; seems like a good partition except for one thing.
Contributor
|
r? @Centril I think this is a good step allowing us to do incremental progress in a reasonable way... ...As such, r=me with green travis. If team members disagree with this incremental approach, feel free to r-. |
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 95ef9b4 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2019
split MaybeUninit into several features, expand docs a bit This splits the `maybe_uninit` feature gate into several: * `maybe_uninit` for what we will hopefully stabilize soon-ish. * `maybe_uninit_ref` for creating references into `MaybeUninit`, for which the rules are not yet clear. * `maybe_uninit_slice` for handling slices of `MaybeUninit`, which needs more API design work. * `maybe_uninit_array` for creating arrays of `MaybeUninit` using a macro (because we don't have rust-lang#49147 yet). Is that an okay thing to do? The goal is to help people avoid APIs we do not want to stabilize yet. I used this to make sure rustc itself does not use `get_ref` and `get_mut`. I also extended the docs to advise against uninitialized integers -- again this is something for which the rules are still being discussed.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2019
Rollup of 19 pull requests Successful merges: - #57929 (Rustdoc remove old style files) - #57981 (Fix #57730) - #58074 (Stabilize slice_sort_by_cached_key) - #58196 (Add specific feature gate error for const-unstable features) - #58293 (Remove code for updating copyright years in generate-deriving-span-tests) - #58306 (Don't default on std crate when manipulating browser history) - #58359 (librustc_mir: use ? in impl_snapshot_for! macro) - #58395 (Instant::checked_duration_since) - #58429 (fix Box::into_unique effecitvely transmuting to a raw ptr) - #58433 (Update which libcore/liballoc tests Miri ignores, and document why) - #58438 (Use posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir_np when possible) - #58440 (Whitelist the ARM v6 target-feature) - #58448 (rustdoc: mask `compiler_builtins` docs) - #58468 (split MaybeUninit into several features, expand docs a bit) - #58477 (Fix the syntax error in publish_toolstate.py) - #58479 (compile-pass test for #53606) - #58489 (Fix runtime error in generate-keyword-tests) - #58496 (Fix documentation for std::path::PathBuf::pop) - #58509 (Notify myself when Clippy toolstate changes)
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2019
Rollup of 19 pull requests Successful merges: - #57929 (Rustdoc remove old style files) - #57981 (Fix #57730) - #58074 (Stabilize slice_sort_by_cached_key) - #58196 (Add specific feature gate error for const-unstable features) - #58293 (Remove code for updating copyright years in generate-deriving-span-tests) - #58306 (Don't default on std crate when manipulating browser history) - #58359 (librustc_mir: use ? in impl_snapshot_for! macro) - #58395 (Instant::checked_duration_since) - #58429 (fix Box::into_unique effecitvely transmuting to a raw ptr) - #58433 (Update which libcore/liballoc tests Miri ignores, and document why) - #58438 (Use posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir_np when possible) - #58440 (Whitelist the ARM v6 target-feature) - #58448 (rustdoc: mask `compiler_builtins` docs) - #58468 (split MaybeUninit into several features, expand docs a bit) - #58479 (compile-pass test for #53606) - #58489 (Fix runtime error in generate-keyword-tests) - #58496 (Fix documentation for std::path::PathBuf::pop) - #58509 (Notify myself when Clippy toolstate changes) - #58521 (Fix tracking issue for error iterators)
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
5 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.
This splits the
maybe_uninitfeature gate into several:maybe_uninitfor what we will hopefully stabilize soon-ish.maybe_uninit_reffor creating references intoMaybeUninit, for which the rules are not yet clear.maybe_uninit_slicefor handling slices ofMaybeUninit, which needs more API design work.maybe_uninit_arrayfor creating arrays ofMaybeUninitusing a macro (because we don't have Tracking issue for RFC 2203, "Constants in array repeat expressions" #49147 yet).Is that an okay thing to do? The goal is to help people avoid APIs we do not want to stabilize yet. I used this to make sure rustc itself does not use
get_refandget_mut.I also extended the docs to advise against uninitialized integers -- again this is something for which the rules are still being discussed.