add tmpnam and pthread_exit #527
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
@alexcrichton the build failed for no apparent reason (iOS build said |
|
Thanks for the PR! Unfortunately this is a breaking change though, so could the change to the function pointer be backed out? |
|
@alexcrichton Can you shed some light on what is breaking? I left out the |
|
@philippkeller I believe that was added in a very recent version of Rust (coercion from safe to unsafe) but historical versions of Rust didn't support such a feature. |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 437c54c has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 22, 2017
pthread_create expects unsafe fn pointer, add tmpnam, move readdir to unix level
tmpnam and readdir are trivial IMO.
About the `pthread_create` change: It needs `unsafe` for passing `C` functions to pthread_create (with rust functions the omission of `unsafe` is working of course).
`bindgen` produces this function definition:
```
pub fn pthread_create(arg1: *mut pthread_t,
arg2: *const pthread_attr_t,
arg3: Option<unsafe extern "C" fn(arg1: *mut c_void) -> *mut c_void>,
arg4: *mut c_void) -> c_int;
```
So it would add an additional `Option` around the function. But that would break existing code which uses `libc::pthread_create` and what use is it to call pthread_create without any function pointer, so I left `Option` out.
For reference: I also opened a [stackoverflow question](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42284562) where the answers were also suggesting adding `unsafe` to the function definition.
|
I see, it only got introduced lately, I think it is only available as from rustc 1.15 |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
philippkeller
changed the title
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit cbdf43b has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2017
add tmpnam and pthread_exit
tmpnam and readdir are trivial IMO.
About the `pthread_create` change: It needs `unsafe` for passing `C` functions to pthread_create (with rust functions the omission of `unsafe` is working of course).
`bindgen` produces this function definition:
```
pub fn pthread_create(arg1: *mut pthread_t,
arg2: *const pthread_attr_t,
arg3: Option<unsafe extern "C" fn(arg1: *mut c_void) -> *mut c_void>,
arg4: *mut c_void) -> c_int;
```
So it would add an additional `Option` around the function. But that would break existing code which uses `libc::pthread_create` and what use is it to call pthread_create without any function pointer, so I left `Option` out.
For reference: I also opened a [stackoverflow question](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42284562) where the answers were also suggesting adding `unsafe` to the function definition.
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
|
@bors: retry
…On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:48 AM, bors ***@***.***> wrote:
💔 Test failed - status-travis
<https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/libc/builds/204626304>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#527 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD95CQ7lyJX9iDgtfZYMLMBkhdiAi4hks5rfao_gaJpZM4MFFa5>
.
|
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2017
add tmpnam and pthread_exit
tmpnam and readdir are trivial IMO.
About the `pthread_create` change: It needs `unsafe` for passing `C` functions to pthread_create (with rust functions the omission of `unsafe` is working of course).
`bindgen` produces this function definition:
```
pub fn pthread_create(arg1: *mut pthread_t,
arg2: *const pthread_attr_t,
arg3: Option<unsafe extern "C" fn(arg1: *mut c_void) -> *mut c_void>,
arg4: *mut c_void) -> c_int;
```
So it would add an additional `Option` around the function. But that would break existing code which uses `libc::pthread_create` and what use is it to call pthread_create without any function pointer, so I left `Option` out.
For reference: I also opened a [stackoverflow question](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42284562) where the answers were also suggesting adding `unsafe` to the function definition.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
danielverkamp
pushed a commit
to danielverkamp/libc
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2020
The `proc_macro` feature has stabilized in the compiler and usage of it largely needs to switch to `use_extern_macros` now.
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.
tmpnam and readdir are trivial IMO.
About the
pthread_createchange: It needsunsafefor passingCfunctions to pthread_create (with rust functions the omission ofunsafeis working of course).bindgenproduces this function definition:So it would add an additional
Optionaround the function. But that would break existing code which useslibc::pthread_createand what use is it to call pthread_create without any function pointer, so I leftOptionout.For reference: I also opened a stackoverflow question where the answers were also suggesting adding
unsafeto the function definition.