-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Add checked_add method to Instant time type #56490
Conversation
r? @Kimundi (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
I started by writing my code using |
src/libstd/time.rs
Outdated
|
||
// Check that the checked_add_duration implementations seem approximately correct | ||
let start = Instant::now(); | ||
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(500)); |
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'm aware that time based tests are incredibly unreliable and usually not a good thing. But I felt that given the fact that the different implementations use time in vastly different scales it would be fairly easy to accidentally treat nanos as millis or similar. As such I thought something like this might help catch errors on the magnitude scale.
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 wonder if perhaps you could do let end = start + Duration::from_millis(500)
? I'm not sure that it's necessary to mix-in Instant::now()
testing here perhaps?
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.
Then the sleep is of no use. The sleep + Instant::now()
is the way to create two instants separated in time without using the add functionality of Instant
. Or am I missing something?
The a +year
test just a few lines above make sure the normal add and the checked add produce the same results.
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.
Ah ok I think I see what you want to test, in that case I think it's fine to omit this test itself. It's true that Instant::now
is notoriously hard to test correctly, so it's ok to just avoid it on this one!
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 removed that part of the test completely 👍
a16f8e4
to
daf2aab
Compare
r? @eddyb |
@Dylan-DPC I wish we had a better categorized list of reviewers. For example, I'm not a libs person, so I'm only really useful for some parts of the compiler + r? @alexcrichton or @sfackler |
This looks great to me, thanks! Could the |
daf2aab
to
6641501
Compare
Moving some stuff out of |
Also while you're at it, want to add a |
I feel it would be the most consistent to do the exact same thing for subtraction. Add |
Either way's fine by me, but given how our queue time isn't always the greatest adding them here seems fine by me |
6641501
to
5a6146f
Compare
Done. Added |
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
5a6146f
to
3358de3
Compare
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
3358de3
to
442abbc
Compare
@bors: r+ 👍 |
📌 Commit 442abbc has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 442abbc with merge e4b6d8d03250adf354e0896e4abbdda1166dfbe4... |
📌 Commit 59496a99761e94f9633ac6997fe8b671f917a85b has been approved by |
59496a9
to
9e5e89a
Compare
This PR screwed the rollup. I have fixed the error from the log now. But I have not verified it will build on cloudabi, not sure how to do a cross platform check from my Linux machine. |
@faern You can use |
Thank you. This changes everything! :) I was going to dig into the travis config to figure out how to do that. But now I don't have to. I now also realize it's actually in the rustc guide if you just look hard enough, so I was apparently not RTFM:ing enough :) Well, what's in this PR right now passes the EDIT: |
Great :) Let's give this another try... @bors r=alexcrichton |
📌 Commit 9e5e89a has been approved by |
…=alexcrichton Add checked_add method to Instant time type Appending functionality to the already opened topic of `checked_add` on time types over at rust-lang#55940. Doing checked addition between an `Instant` and a `Duration` is important to reliably determine a future instant. We could use this in the `parking_lot` crate to compute an instant when in the future to wake a thread up without risking a panic.
Add checked_add method to Instant time type Appending functionality to the already opened topic of `checked_add` on time types over at #55940. Doing checked addition between an `Instant` and a `Duration` is important to reliably determine a future instant. We could use this in the `parking_lot` crate to compute an instant when in the future to wake a thread up without risking a panic.
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Eliminate Receiver::recv_timeout panic Fixes #54552. This panic is because `recv_timeout` uses `Instant::now() + timeout` internally. This possible panic is not mentioned in the documentation for this method. Very recently we merged (still unstable) support for checked addition (#56490) of `Instant + Duration`, so it's now finally possible to add these together without risking a panic.
…ce, r=shepmaster Simplify checked_duration_since This follows the same design as we updated to in rust-lang#56490. Internally, all the system specific time implementations are checked, no panics. Then the panicking publicly exported API can just call the checked version of itself and make do with a single panic (`expect`) at the top. Since the internal sys implementations are now checked, this gets rid of the extra `if self >= &earlier` check in `checked_duration_since`. Except likely making the generated machine code simpler, it also reduces the algorithm from "Check panic condition -> call possibly panicking method" to just "call non panicking method". Added two test cases: * Edge case: Make sure `checked_duration_since` on two equal `Instant`s produce a zero duration, not a `None`. * Most common/intended usage: Make sure `later.checked_duration_since(earlier)`, returns an expected value.
…ce, r=shepmaster Simplify checked_duration_since This follows the same design as we updated to in rust-lang#56490. Internally, all the system specific time implementations are checked, no panics. Then the panicking publicly exported API can just call the checked version of itself and make do with a single panic (`expect`) at the top. Since the internal sys implementations are now checked, this gets rid of the extra `if self >= &earlier` check in `checked_duration_since`. Except likely making the generated machine code simpler, it also reduces the algorithm from "Check panic condition -> call possibly panicking method" to just "call non panicking method". Added two test cases: * Edge case: Make sure `checked_duration_since` on two equal `Instant`s produce a zero duration, not a `None`. * Most common/intended usage: Make sure `later.checked_duration_since(earlier)`, returns an expected value.
…ce, r=shepmaster Simplify checked_duration_since This follows the same design as we updated to in rust-lang#56490. Internally, all the system specific time implementations are checked, no panics. Then the panicking publicly exported API can just call the checked version of itself and make do with a single panic (`expect`) at the top. Since the internal sys implementations are now checked, this gets rid of the extra `if self >= &earlier` check in `checked_duration_since`. Except likely making the generated machine code simpler, it also reduces the algorithm from "Check panic condition -> call possibly panicking method" to just "call non panicking method". Added two test cases: * Edge case: Make sure `checked_duration_since` on two equal `Instant`s produce a zero duration, not a `None`. * Most common/intended usage: Make sure `later.checked_duration_since(earlier)`, returns an expected value.
Appending functionality to the already opened topic of
checked_add
on time types over at #55940.Doing checked addition between an
Instant
and aDuration
is important to reliably determine a future instant. We could use this in theparking_lot
crate to compute an instant when in the future to wake a thread up without risking a panic.