Skip to content
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

Update outdated comment in unix Command. #82464

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
Collaborator

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
Contributor

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Update outdated comment in unix Command.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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in 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