Run rustfmt on liballoc #28610
Run rustfmt on liballoc #28610
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
r? @brson |
| @@ -251,7 +253,9 @@ impl<T: ?Sized> Arc<T> { | |||
| let cur = this.inner().weak.load(Relaxed); | |||
|
|
|||
| // check if the weak counter is currently "locked"; if so, spin. | |||
| if cur == usize::MAX { continue } | |||
| if cur == usize::MAX { | |||
| continue | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since this is a style PR, I wonder: is it good style to use ; here? I probably would. I know it's not in the original source, so it's not rustfmt doing it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree that we should - https://github.com/nrc/rustfmt/issues/353
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I personally prefer to leave off ; whenever it's a terminating statement that can't have anything following it anyway (e.g. break, return, continue) but that may be just my style
|
The bits Steve and I identified as sub-optimal are all bits which will be changed if we re-run with an improved rustfmt, so I don't think they should block landing this PR. |
| unsafe { | ||
| self.drop_slow() | ||
| } | ||
| unsafe { self.drop_slow() } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this one turned into one-line, but the previous unsafe block has the precise opposite?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We allow one-line unsafe blocks if there is a single expression, the previous one is a single statement. This is obviously an imperfect heuristic, foiled here because there is no semi-colon, even though we don't use the value. We don't have type info in rustfmt (for now), so can't insert the semicolon. I'll fix this instance manually.
|
@gankro better? |
|
I'm pretty bumbed out about losing all these sweet one-liners (especially the ternaries and trait impls)... But the most egregious affronts to the unsafe gods have been removed, for sure. |
|
r=me when you are satisfied comments addressed |
|
I think all the comments (except Gankro's which I don't think can be easily addressed) are about possible improvements rather than things that need to be done now. @bors: r=brson |
|
📌 Commit 459f772 has been approved by |
|
💔 Test failed - auto-linux-32-opt |
|
@bors: retry On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:32 PM, bors notifications@github.com wrote:
|
No description provided.