Implement the notion of a "generated unsafe block" #9013
Closed
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
| @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ pub struct Field { | |||
| #[deriving(Clone, Eq, Encodable, Decodable, IterBytes)] | |||
| pub enum BlockCheckMode { | |||
| DefaultBlock, | |||
| UnsafeBlock, | |||
| UnsafeBlock(/* generated internally */ bool), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it worth splitting this into a self-documenting enum? (enum UnsafeType { GeneratedUnsafe, UserUnsafe } or something.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a bad idea, updated with this change now.
|
Needs rebase. |
This way syntax extensions can generate unsafe blocks without worrying about them generating unnecessary unsafe warnings. Perhaps a special keyword could be added to be used in macros, but I don't think that's the best solution.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2013
…nxiyn This way syntax extensions can generate unsafe blocks without worrying about them generating unnecessary unsafe warnings. Perhaps a special keyword could be added to be used in macros, but I don't think that's the best solution. Currently if you use `format!` and friends in an `unsafe` block you're guaranteed to get some unused-unsafe warnings which is unfortunate. We normally do want these warnings, but I'm ok ignoring them in the case of compiler-generated unsafe blocks. I tried to do this in the least intrusive way possible, but others may have better ideas about how to do this.
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2022
change applicability type to MaybeIncorrect in `explicit_counter_loop` close rust-lang#9013 This PR changes applicability type to `MaybeIncorrect`, because the suggestion is not `MachineApplicable`. changelog: change applicability type to MaybeIncorrect in `explicit_counter_loop`
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.
This way syntax extensions can generate unsafe blocks without worrying about them generating unnecessary unsafe warnings. Perhaps a special keyword could be added to be used in macros, but I don't think that's the best solution.
Currently if you use
format!and friends in anunsafeblock you're guaranteed to get some unused-unsafe warnings which is unfortunate. We normally do want these warnings, but I'm ok ignoring them in the case of compiler-generated unsafe blocks. I tried to do this in the least intrusive way possible, but others may have better ideas about how to do this.