Rollup of 10 pull requests #83573
Merged
Rollup of 10 pull requests #83573
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
Proper Unix terminology is "exit status" (vs "wait status"). "exit code" is imprecise on Unix and therefore unclear. (As far as I can tell, "exit code" is correct terminology on Windows.) This new wording is unfortunately inconsistent with the identifier names in the Rust stdlib. It is the identifier names that are wrong, as discussed at length in eg https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/process/struct.ExitStatus.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/os/unix/process/trait.ExitStatusExt.html Unfortunately for API stability reasons it would be a lot of work, and a lot of disruption, to change the names in the stdlib (eg to rename `std::process::ExitStatus` to `std::process::ChildStatus` or something), but we should fix the message output. Many (probably most) readers of these messages about exit statuses will be users and system administrators, not programmers, who won't even know that Rust has this wrong terminology. So I think the right thing is to fix the documentation (as I have already done) and, now, the terminology in the implementation. This is a user-visible change to the behaviour of all Rust programs which run Unix subprocesses. Hopefully no-one is matching against the exit status string, except perhaps in tests. Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes rust-lang#83344
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print "<locked>" unhelpfully. After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive.
Includes suggestion from the8472 rust-lang#79390 (comment) More detail error explanation in fs doc
Use detailed and shorter fs error explaination Includes suggestion from `@the8472` rust-lang#79390 (comment)
format macro argument parsing fix
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes rust-lang#83344
---
r? ```@estebank```
…, r=joshtriplett
ExitStatus: print "exit status: {}" rather than "exit code: {}" on unix
Proper Unix terminology is "exit status" (vs "wait status"). "exit
code" is imprecise on Unix and therefore unclear. (As far as I can
tell, "exit code" is correct terminology on Windows.)
This new wording is unfortunately inconsistent with the identifier
names in the Rust stdlib.
It is the identifier names that are wrong, as discussed at length in eg
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/process/struct.ExitStatus.html
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/os/unix/process/trait.ExitStatusExt.html
Unfortunately for API stability reasons it would be a lot of work, and
a lot of disruption, to change the names in the stdlib (eg to rename
`std::process::ExitStatus` to `std::process::ChildStatus` or
something), but we should fix the message output. Many (probably
most) readers of these messages about exit statuses will be users and
system administrators, not programmers, who won't even know that Rust
has this wrong terminology.
So I think the right thing is to fix the documentation (as I have
already done) and, now, the terminology in the implementation.
This is a user-visible change to the behaviour of all Rust programs
which run Unix subprocesses. Hopefully no-one is matching against the
exit status string, except perhaps in tests.
lazily calls some fns Replaced some fn's with it's lazy variants.
…r=jackh726 Use DebugStruct::finish_non_exhaustive() in std. See rust-lang#67364
…ackh726
Fix Debug implementation for RwLock{Read,Write}Guard.
This would attempt to print the Debug representation of the lock that the guard has locked, which will try to lock again, fail, and just print `"<locked>"` unhelpfully.
After this change, this just prints the contents of the mutex, like the other smart pointers (and MutexGuard) do.
MutexGuard had this problem too: rust-lang#57702
Derive Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it. This derives Debug for io::Chain instead of manually implementing it. The manual implementation has the same bounds, so I don't think there's any reason for a manual implementation. The names used in the derive implementation are even nicer (`first`/`second`) than the manual implementation (`t`/`u`), and include the `done_first` field too.
Improve Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock. This improves the Debug implementations of Mutex and RwLock. They now show the poison flag and use debug_non_exhaustive. (See rust-lang#67364.)
Update rustup cross-compilation docs link
… r=jackh726 Add regression tests for rust-lang#56445 Closes rust-lang#56445.
|
@bors r+ p=10 rollup=never |
|
📌 Commit 1ad7c52 has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
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.
Successful merges:
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup