format safety keywords on static items #6204
Conversation
This includes both `ast::StaticItem` and `ast::StaticForeignItem`. `safety` was added to both `ast::StaticItem` and `ast::SaticForeignItem` in rust-lang/rust#124482.
|
|
||
| #![feature(unsafe_extern_blocks)] | ||
|
|
||
| safe static TEST1: i32; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure that formatting the safety here is necessary per this comment https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124482/files#r1608953719. For now it parses, so I don't think there's an issue, though I'm happy to revert the changes to StaticParts if we don't think this is necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's keep it, since it doesn't hurt.
|
|
||
| #![feature(unsafe_extern_blocks)] | ||
|
|
||
| safe static TEST1: i32; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's keep it, since it doesn't hurt.
|
probably warrants an addition in the release notes too |
|
@calebcartwright I'll update the CHANGELOG PR #6004 in just a bit to include this Edit: The CHANGELOG PR was updated! |
| @@ -1989,11 +1994,13 @@ fn rewrite_static( | |||
| static_parts: &StaticParts<'_>, | |||
| offset: Indent, | |||
| ) -> Option<String> { | |||
| println!("rewriting static"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You left in a debug print, it seems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am surprised that this did not make any of the tests fail...?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am surprised that this did not make any of the tests fail...?
same (#6210 (comment))
we'll do a postmortem of sorts to review and hopefully identify some preventative measures to prevent a recurrence
This includes both
ast::StaticItemandast::StaticForeignItem.safetywas added to bothast::StaticItemandast::SaticForeignItemin rust-lang/rust#124482.