Skip to content

Update outdated comment in unix Command. #82464

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2021

Conversation

ehuss
Copy link
Contributor

@ehuss ehuss commented Feb 24, 2021

The big comment in the Command struct has been incorrect for some time (at least since #46789 which removed envp). Rather than try to remove the allocations, this PR just updates the comment to reflect reality. There is an explanation for the reasoning at #31409 (comment), discussing the potential of being able to call Command::exec after libc::fork. That can still be done in the future, but I think for now it would be good to just correct the comment.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @kennytm

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 24, 2021
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Feb 24, 2021

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 24, 2021

📌 Commit 476c6c2 has been approved by kennytm

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 24, 2021
JohnTitor added a commit to JohnTitor/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2021
Update outdated comment in unix Command.

The big comment in the `Command` struct has been incorrect for some time (at least since rust-lang#46789 which removed `envp`). Rather than try to remove the allocations, this PR just updates the comment to reflect reality. There is an explanation for the reasoning at rust-lang#31409 (comment), discussing the potential of being able to call `Command::exec` after `libc::fork`.  That can still be done in the future, but I think for now it would be good to just correct the comment.
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2021
Rollup of 11 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#82269 (Cleanup `PpMode` and friends)
 - rust-lang#82431 (Set RUST_BACKTRACE=0 when running `treat-err-as-bug` tests)
 - rust-lang#82441 (Fix typo in sanitizer flag in unstable book.)
 - rust-lang#82463 (panic_bounds_checks should be panic_bounds_check)
 - rust-lang#82464 (Update outdated comment in unix Command.)
 - rust-lang#82467 (library: Normalize safety-for-unsafe-block comments)
 - rust-lang#82468 (Move pick_by_value_method docs above function header)
 - rust-lang#82484 (rustdoc: Remove duplicate "List of all items")
 - rust-lang#82502 (Only look for HTML `tidy` when running rustdoc tests)
 - rust-lang#82503 (fix typo in `pre-commit.sh`)
 - rust-lang#82510 (Fix typo in `param_env_reveal_all_normalized`)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 503d50b into rust-lang:master Feb 26, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.52.0 milestone Feb 26, 2021
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants