Don't announce CloudABI as being UNIX. #47089
Conversation
This was originally brought in, because the definitions are based on those of FreeBSD, Linux, etc. Even though CloudABI is based on POSIX, it uses a subset that is so small that it's not reasonable to call it POSIX. Now that I'm porting libstd, I'm running into some spots where I have to explicitly disable code paths that were enabled by cfg(unix).
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nikomatsakis (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
kennytm
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
After rust-lang#47089 lands, CloudABI will no longer be considered UNIX. We need to pick the right allocator flavour now.
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 4685233 has been approved by |
Don't announce CloudABI as being UNIX. This was originally brought in, because the definitions are based on those of FreeBSD, Linux, etc. Even though CloudABI is based on POSIX, it uses a subset that is so small that it's not reasonable to call it POSIX. Now that I'm porting libstd, I'm running into some spots where I have to explicitly disable code paths that were enabled by cfg(unix).
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This was originally brought in, because the definitions are based on
those of FreeBSD, Linux, etc. Even though CloudABI is based on POSIX, it
uses a subset that is so small that it's not reasonable to call it POSIX.
Now that I'm porting libstd, I'm running into some spots where I have to
explicitly disable code paths that were enabled by cfg(unix).