| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarify docs regarding sleep of zero duration
Clarify that the behaviour of sleep() when given a duration of zero is actually platform specific.
|
|
Fix link reference
Co-authored-by: Joshua Nelson <joshua@yottadb.com>
|
|
Updated to specify the underlying syscalls
|
|
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79950.
|
|
|
|
There were no use cases for setting them separately.
Merging them simplifies some things.
|
|
|
|
Fixes #42474.
|
|
|
|
Split sys_common::Mutex in StaticMutex and MovableMutex.
The (unsafe) `Mutex` from `sys_common` had a rather complicated interface. You were supposed to call `init()` manually, unless you could guarantee it was neither moved nor used reentrantly.
Calling `destroy()` was also optional, although it was unclear if 1) resources might be leaked or not, and 2) if `destroy()` should only be called when `init()` was called.
This allowed for a number of interesting (confusing?) different ways to use this `Mutex`, all captured in a single type.
In practice, this type was only ever used in two ways:
1. As a static variable. In this case, neither `init()` nor `destroy()` are called. The variable is never moved, and it is never used reentrantly. It is only ever locked using the `LockGuard`, never with `raw_lock`.
2. As a `Box`ed variable. In this case, both `init()` and `destroy()` are called, it will be moved and possibly used reentrantly.
No other combinations are used anywhere in `std`.
This change simplifies things by splitting this `Mutex` type into two types matching the two use cases: `StaticMutex` and `MovableMutex`.
The interface of both new types is now both safer and simpler. The first one does not call nor expose `init`/`destroy`, and the second one calls those automatically in its `new()` and `Drop` functions. Also, the locking functions of `MovableMutex` are no longer unsafe.
---
This will also make it easier to conditionally box mutexes later, by moving that decision into sys/sys_common. Some of the mutex implementations (at least those of Wasm and 'sys/unsupported') are safe to move, so wouldn't need a box. ~~(But that's blocked on #76932 for now.)~~ (See #77380.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The (unsafe) Mutex from sys_common had a rather complicated interface.
You were supposed to call init() manually, unless you could guarantee it
was neither moved nor used reentrantly.
Calling `destroy()` was also optional, although it was unclear if 1)
resources might be leaked or not, and 2) if destroy() should only be
called when `init()` was called.
This allowed for a number of interesting (confusing?) different ways to
use this Mutex, all captured in a single type.
In practice, this type was only ever used in two ways:
1. As a static variable. In this case, neither init() nor destroy() are
called. The variable is never moved, and it is never used
reentrantly. It is only ever locked using the LockGuard, never with
raw_lock.
2. As a Boxed variable. In this case, both init() and destroy() are
called, it will be moved and possibly used reentrantly.
No other combinations are used anywhere in `std`.
This change simplifies things by splitting this Mutex type into
two types matching the two use cases: StaticMutex and MovableMutex.
The interface of both new types is now both safer and simpler. The first
one does not call nor expose init/destroy, and the second one calls
those automatically in its new() and Drop functions. Also, the locking
functions of MovableMutex are no longer unsafe.
|
|
r=joshtriplett
Std/thread: deny unsafe op in unsafe fn
Partial fix of #73904.
This encloses `unsafe` operations in `unsafe fn` in `libstd/thread`.
`@rustbot` modify labels: F-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn
|
|
This may not be strictly minimal, but all unstable functions also need a
`rustc_const_unstable` attribute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std/thread
|
|
inline(never) is better way to avoid optimizer to inline the function instead of cold.
|
|
Also doing fmt inplace as requested.
|
|
|
|
This adds SAFETY comments where necessary, explaining the preconditions
and how they are respected.
|
|
|
