-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 250
Tweak util_libc::open_readonly
#434
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, but since this already returns a
Result, we should avoidassert!. Either the compiler is going to optimize away the check completely anyway, or we'd be left with dead code that constructs anErr, or we'd be left with dead code that panics. The possibility of dead code that panics is problematic for some static analysis mechanisms that try to ensure there are no panics in a program.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think having an
assert!here is fine. If this ever triggers, it's an error in our code, not an error in the user's calling environment or input.For
opt-level=1(https://rust.godbolt.org/z/K3cjrsxqa) oropt-level=s(https://rust.godbolt.org/z/MT9jozE1e) , the assert is optimized away, and onopt-level=0there's a bunch of dead code that panics, even if theassertis replaced with a branch(https://rust.godbolt.org/z/939exhnKn). Leaving it as-is also makes things more readable/debuggable.A better approach for this is documenting and testing that our implementation does not panic, I opened #435.