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

Sync upstream #448

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Jan 18, 2025
Merged

Sync upstream #448

merged 29 commits into from
Jan 18, 2025

Conversation

calebzulawski
Copy link
Member

@calebzulawski calebzulawski commented Jan 16, 2025

Apparently rebases don't really work with git subtree, which is what I was using in the past. I did a merge this time, which had better conflict resolution. (we should really move to josh, if I can ever get a chance to figure it out...)

workingjubilee and others added 28 commits July 7, 2023 04:07
Signed-off-by: cui fliter <imcusg@gmail.com>
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance

As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).

The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)

The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
…relude

Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.

The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.

Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
Add `size_of` and `size_of_val` and `align_of` and `align_of_val` to the prelude

(Note: need to update the PR to add `align_of` and `align_of_val`, and remove the second commit with the myriad changes to appease the lint.)

Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.

The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
This makes their intent and expected location clearer. We see some
examples where these comments were not clearly separate from `use`
declarations, which made it hard to understand what the comment is
describing.
Most modules have such a blank line, but some don't. Inserting the blank
line makes it clearer that the `//!` comments are describing the entire
module, rather than the `use` declaration(s) that immediately follows.
Many tiny changes to stdlib doc comments to make them consistent (for example
"Returns foo", rather than "Return foo", per RFC1574), adding missing periods, paragraph
breaks, backticks for monospace style, and other minor nits.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1574-more-api-documentation-conventions.md#appendix-a-full-conventions-text
Copy link
Member

@programmerjake programmerjake left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, assuming you did the git subtree ops correctly

@calebzulawski calebzulawski merged commit 4b1a23e into master Jan 18, 2025
59 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.