-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
std: use realstd fast key when building tests #100201
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 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 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 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It turns out that only one of these three key types is ever actually used now. So I considered refactoring this to avoid giving them different names, instead making
__LocalKeyInner
always be the key type for the current configuration. Do you think that would be a good idea?The only issue I can see is that the types have to be used in slightly different ways:
__FastLocalKeyInner
wants a#[thread_local] static
, the others a regularstatic
. Using the same name for both usages slightly increases the risk that this would be mixed up.Also I wasn't sure whether
all(target_family = "wasm", not(target_feature = "atomics"))
impliednot(target_thread_local)
, if that is the case some of thesecfg
could be simplified and we could potentially at least merge__OsLocalKeyInner
and__StaticLocalKeyInner
into one type (i.e., move the logic for which implementation to use for that into thelocal
module, rather than having it spread between that module and this file).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.
Turns out the answer is no: #84224
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.
Hm, you mean just always using the same name? If you want to do this, please submit it as a different PR. I think it might be cleaner, but also might end up ending up making mistakes more likely (as you mention). Either way, it feels like an unrelated change to this. Feel free to r?me if you decide to do this.
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.
Yeah, basically have a single name for "the TLS key type we are using".
Not sure if it's worth it though.