-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Rust version support policy for libc #304
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
Comments
Certainly! Always a good thing to have. This is currently covered by rust-lang/rfcs#1619, though, so I'm going to close in favor of that. |
(comments of course welcome on that RFC!) |
Susurrus
pushed a commit
to Susurrus/libc
that referenced
this issue
Mar 26, 2017
uio: Use bindings from libc instead of our own Refs nix-rust/nix#264
danielverkamp
pushed a commit
to danielverkamp/libc
that referenced
this issue
Apr 28, 2020
Some intrinsics take `i64` or `u64` arguments which typically means that they're using 64-bit registers and aren't actually available on x86. This commit adds a check to stdsimd-verify to assert this and moves around some intrinsics that I believe should only be available on x86_64. This commit was checked in many places against gcc/clang/MSVC using godbolt.org to ensure that we're agreeing with what other compilers are doing. Closes rust-lang#304
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
From #303, where supporting unions was discussed.
I still don't have a good handle on the community's thoughts on this—in nix we test against Rust 1.1 and up with an open issue to decide on a policy. I see that libc tests on 1.0 and up, which is an implicit version support policy. Is there an explicit one? I skimmed the README and RFC, but didn't spot anything obvious about it.
This will come up again once one of the bitfield RFCs get accepted and implemented, so it's worth thinking and being clearly explicit about.
For both unions and bitfields, it's a user code ergonomics and correctness win to have libc export as complete definitions of structs as possible.
I hope that the language survey will give an idea of how many people are on older language versions, so we can have a bit more of an idea of what dropping support would mean.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: