Skip to content
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

Update docs for process::abort #44905

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 4, 2017
Merged

Conversation

mistodon
Copy link

Remove a typo and explain the relationship to panic!.

Part of #29370

r? @steveklabnik

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

/// This is in contrast to the default behaviour of [`panic!`] which unwinds
/// the current thread's stack and calls all destructors.
/// When `panic="abort"` is set, either as an argument to `rustc` or in a
/// crate's Cargo.toml, [`panic!`] and `abort` are equivalent.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this correct? With panic=abort, I assumed a settable panic handler and/or a backtrace would happen, whereas process::abort will not call a panic handler.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just tested this and it looks like you're right - I'd missed that. I'll change the wording and mentioned that process::abort skips the panic handler.

@shepmaster shepmaster added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Sep 29, 2017
@mistodon
Copy link
Author

mistodon commented Oct 2, 2017

I've amended that description to mention the panic hook, I think this is correct now.

@diwic
Copy link
Contributor

diwic commented Oct 2, 2017

@PIRH
Looks good to me! (I'm not someone who has any rights to ask bors to do anything, so you'll have to wait for someone else to review/approve as well.)

Copy link
Member

@steveklabnik steveklabnik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks so much!

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 3, 2017

📌 Commit 28ef0d1 has been approved by steveklabnik

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 4, 2017

⌛ Testing commit 28ef0d1 with merge eabef06...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2017
Update docs for process::abort

Remove a typo and explain the relationship to `panic!`.

Part of #29370

r? @steveklabnik
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 4, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: steveklabnik
Pushing eabef06 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 28ef0d1 into rust-lang:master Oct 4, 2017
@mgattozzi mgattozzi mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2017
14 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants