The name (and updated documentation) make the FFI-only usage clearer, and wrapping Option<OwnedHandle> avoids the need to write a separate Drop or Debug impl.
Co-authored-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Add TcpStream type to TcpListener::incoming docs
## Context
While going through the "The Rust Programming Language" book (Klabnik & Nichols), the TCP server example directs us to use TcpListener::incoming. I was curious how I could pass this value to a function (before reading ahead in the book), so I looked up the docs to determine the signature.
When I opened the docs, I found https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.incoming, which didn't mention TcpStream anywhere in the example.
Eventually, I clicked on https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.accept in the docs (after clicking a few other locations first), and was able to surmise that the value contained TcpStream.
## Opportunity
While this type is mentioned several times in this doc, I feel that someone should be able to fully use the results of the TcpListner::incoming iterator based solely on the docs of just this method.
## Implementation
I took the code from the top-level TcpListener https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.incoming and blended it with the existing docs for TcpListener::incoming https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/net/struct.TcpListener.html#method.incoming.
It does make the example a little longer, and it also introduces a little duplication. It also gives the reader the type signatures they need to move on to the next step.
## Additional considerations
I noticed that in this doc, `handle_connection` and `handle_client` are both used to accept a TcpStream in the docs on this page. I want to standardize on one function name convention, so readers don't accidentally think two different concepts are being referenced. I didn't want to cram do too much in one PR, I can update this PR to make that change, or I could send another PR (if you would like).
First attempted contribution to Rust (and I'm also still very new, hence reading through the rust book for the first time)! Would you please let me know what you think?
Update the backtrace crate in libstd
This commit updates the backtrace crate in libstd now that dependencies
have been updated to use `memchr` from the standard library as well.
This is mostly just making sure deps are up-to-date and have all the
latest-and-greatest fixes and such.
Closesrust-lang/backtrace-rs#432
This commit updates the backtrace crate in libstd now that dependencies
have been updated to use `memchr` from the standard library as well.
This is mostly just making sure deps are up-to-date and have all the
latest-and-greatest fixes and such.
Closesrust-lang/backtrace-rs#432
Unbox mutexes, condvars and rwlocks on hermit
[RustyHermit](https://github.com/hermitcore/rusty-hermit) provides now movable synchronization primitives and we are able to unbox mutexes and condvars.
Fix environment variable getter docs
`@RalfJung` pointed out a number of errors and suboptimal choices I made in my documentation for #86183. This PR should (hopefully) fix the problems they've identified.
Change WASI's `RawFd` from `u32` to `c_int` (`i32`).
WASI previously used `u32` as its `RawFd` type, since its "file descriptors"
are unsigned table indices, and there's no fundamental reason why WASI can't
have more than 2^31 handles.
However, this creates myriad little incompability problems with code
that also supports Unix platforms, where `RawFd` is `c_int`. While WASI
isn't a Unix, it often shares code with Unix, and this difference made
such shared code inconvenient. #87329 is the most recent example of such
code.
So, switch WASI to use `c_int`, which is `i32`. This will mean that code
intending to support WASI should ideally avoid assuming that negative file
descriptors are invalid, even though POSIX itself says that file descriptors
are never negative.
This is a breaking change, but `RawFd` is considerd an experimental
feature in [the documentation].
[the documentation]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/os/wasi/io/type.RawFd.html
r? `@alexcrichton`
The libs-api team agrees to allow const_trait_impl to appear in the
standard library as long as stable code cannot be broken (they are
properly gated) this means if the compiler teams thinks it's okay, then
it's okay.
My priority on constifying would be:
1. Non-generic impls (e.g. Default) or generic impls with no
bounds
2. Generic functions with bounds (that use const impls)
3. Generic impls with bounds
4. Impls for traits with associated types
For people opening constification PRs: please cc me and/or oli-obk.
WASI previously used `u32` as its `RawFd` type, since its "file descriptors"
are unsigned table indices, and there's no fundamental reason why WASI can't
have more than 2^31 handles.
However, this creates myriad little incompability problems with code
that also supports Unix platforms, where `RawFd` is `c_int`. While WASI
isn't a Unix, it often shares code with Unix, and this difference made
such shared code inconvenient. #87329 is the most recent example of such
code.
So, switch WASI to use `c_int`, which is `i32`. This will mean that code
intending to support WASI should ideally avoid assuming that negative file
descriptors are invalid, even though POSIX itself says that file descriptors
are never negative.
This is a breaking change, but `RawFd` is considerd an experimental
feature in [the documentation].
[the documentation]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/os/wasi/io/type.RawFd.html
