Redox: correct is_absolute() and has_root() #43983
Conversation
Redox paths are problematic. It would make sense to add a `Scheme` variant to the `std::path::Component` enum; but that would presumably be a breaking change due to exhaustive matching. Alternately it could use the existing `Prefix` variant, like Windows, but none of the existing types of prefix make sense, Redox only has one kind, and adding a new variant to that enum has the same issue as `Component`.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
Can this avoid the usage of |
|
I changed it the |
src/libstd/path.rs
Outdated
| @@ -323,6 +323,13 @@ unsafe fn u8_slice_as_os_str(s: &[u8]) -> &OsStr { | |||
| mem::transmute(s) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // Detect scheme on Redox | |||
| #[inline] | |||
| #[allow(unused_variables)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think either annotation here is necessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh right; inlining probably will happen anyway. The allow was needed with #[cfg] since the argument was unused on non-Redox, but is unneeded now.
src/libstd/path.rs
Outdated
| // Detect scheme on Redox | ||
| #[inline] | ||
| #[allow(unused_variables)] | ||
| fn has_scheme(s: &[u8]) -> bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be something like has_redox_scheme?
src/libstd/path.rs
Outdated
| @@ -605,6 +612,9 @@ pub struct Components<'a> { | |||
| // normalization, e.g. \\server\share == \\server\share\. | |||
| has_physical_root: bool, | |||
|
|
|||
| // For Redox | |||
| has_scheme: bool, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be avoided and the has_physical_root above be generalized?
|
@bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit fe2d661 has been approved by |
arielb1
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
…ichton Redox: correct is_absolute() and has_root() This is awkward, but representing schemes properly in `Components` is not easily possible without breaking backwards compatibility, as discussed earlier in rust-lang#37702. But these methods can be corrected anyway.
This is awkward, but representing schemes properly in
Componentsis not easily possible without breaking backwards compatibility, as discussed earlier in #37702.But these methods can be corrected anyway.