Skip to content

Fix glue symbol mangling #6921

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
brson opened this issue Jun 3, 2013 · 1 comment
Closed

Fix glue symbol mangling #6921

brson opened this issue Jun 3, 2013 · 1 comment
Labels
A-codegen Area: Code generation E-easy Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.

Comments

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jun 3, 2013

Here's an example of what we're looking at:

unstablesyncUnsafeAtomicRcBoxunstableatomicsAtomicOptionrtcommChanOnertcommStreamPayload_of_::_1889f9c1bacda27d::glue_drop_53969

Needs more colons.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Jun 3, 2013

Actually colons plus some substitute for < >. Just make it readable.

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2013
Handle more characters that appear in types, most notably <>): were
missing. Also the new scheme takes care that no two different input
strings result in the same mangled string, which was not the case before.

Fixes #6921
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this issue Mar 25, 2021
…and the ? is not.

The suggestion would fail to apply.

Fixes rust-lang#6921

changelog: needless_question_mark: don't lint if Some(..) is inside a macro def and the ? is not.
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this issue Mar 25, 2021
needless_question_mark: don't lint if Some(..) is inside a macro def and the ? is not.

The suggestion would fail to apply.

Fixes rust-lang#6921

changelog: needless_question_mark: don't lint if Some(..) is inside a macro def and the ? is not.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-codegen Area: Code generation E-easy Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant