Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Rollup of 5 pull requests - #112755
Merged
Merged
Conversation
At the moment, documentation of std::io::Write::write indicates that call to it ‘represents at most one attempt to write to any wrapped object’. It seems that such wording was put there to contrast it with pre-1.0 interface which attempted to write all the data (it has since been changed in [RFC 517]). However, the requirement puts unnecessary constraints and may complicate adaptors which perform non-trivial transformations on the data. For example, they may maintain an internal buffer which needs to be written out before the write method accepts more data. It might be natural to code the method such that it flushes the buffer and then grabs another chunk of user data. With the current wording in the documentation, the adaptor would be forced to return Ok(0). This commit softens the wording such that implementations can choose code structure which makes most sense for their particular use case. While at it, elaborate on the meaning of `Ok(0)` return pointing out that the write_all methods interprets it as an error. [RFC 517]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0517-io-os-reform.html
Co-authored-by: Andrew Gallant <jamslam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com>
It was already filtered out for emscripten, but wasi doesn't need dlmalloc either since it reuses `unix/alloc.rs`.
io: soften ‘at most one write attempt’ requirement in io::Write::write At the moment, documentation of std::io::Write::write indicates that call to it ‘represents at most one attempt to write to any wrapped object’. It seems that such wording was put there to contrast it with pre-1.0 interface which attempted to write all the data (it has since been changed in [RFC 517]). However, the requirement puts unnecessary constraints and may complicate adaptors which perform non-trivial transformations on the data. For example, they may maintain an internal buffer which needs to be written out before the write method accepts more data. It might be natural to code the method such that it flushes the buffer and then grabs another chunk of user data. With the current wording in the documentation, the adaptor would be forced to return Ok(0). This commit softens the wording such that implementations can choose code structure which makes most sense for their particular use case. While at it, elaborate on the meaning of `Ok(0)` return pointing out that the write_all methods interprets it as an error. [RFC 517]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0517-io-os-reform.html
… r=lcnr Move WF/ConstEvaluatable goal to clause It can show up in a param-env, so I think it needs to be a clause kind. r? ```@lcnr``` or ```@oli-obk```
…lacrum std: only depend on dlmalloc for wasm*-unknown It was already filtered out for emscripten, but wasi doesn't need dlmalloc either since it reuses `unix/alloc.rs`.
bootstrap: check for dry run when copying env vars for msvc The new synthetic targets for mir-opt blessing aren't added to `builder.cc` during dry runs, causing `x.py test tests/mir-opt --bless` to crash on MSVC when it tries to copy env vars to the C compiler invocation. This PR adds a check for dry run to fix the panic.
…compiler-errors Make `Bound::predicates` use `Clause` Part of rust-lang#107250 `Bound::predicates` returns an iterator over `Binder<_, Clause>` instead of `Predicate`. I tried updating `explicit_predicates_of` as well, but it seems that it needs a lot more change than I thought. Will do it in a separate PR instead.
matthiaskrgr
commented
Jun 18, 2023
MemberAuthor
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
bors
commented
Jun 18, 2023
Collaborator
bors
commented
Jun 18, 2023
Collaborator
bors
commented
Jun 18, 2023
Collaborator
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Jun 18, 2023
Collaborator
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR: previous master: 0c2c243342 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
This was referenced Jun 18, 2023
rust-timer
commented
Jun 18, 2023
Collaborator
Finished benchmarking commit (76fb0e3): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 656.801s -> 656.258s (-0.08%) |
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 freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
9 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.
Successful merges:
Bound::predicatesuseClause#112734 (MakeBound::predicatesuseClause)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup