Don't initialize stdout during io cleanup #119394
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
Slightly simplify the `std::io::cleanup` code by using `OnceCell::get` instead of checking initialization manually with `get_or_init`. This also has the consequence of not initializing stdout with an empty buffer if it hasn't been already, but I believe this is inconsequential given that this code only runs at process exit.
|
(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
This doesn't disable buffering unlike the previous code, which may matter if |
|
r? libs-api |
rustbot
added
the
T-libs-api
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Slightly simplify the
std::io::cleanupcode by usingOnceCell::getinstead of checking initialization manually withget_or_init.This also has the consequence of not initializing stdout with an empty buffer if it hasn't been already, but I believe this is inconsequential given that this code only runs at process exit.