Skip to content

Document read_line gotchas #106352

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 2, 2023
Merged

Document read_line gotchas #106352

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 2, 2023

Conversation

kornelski
Copy link
Contributor

@kornelski kornelski commented Jan 1, 2023

  1. The "You do not need to clear the buffer before appending" advice is ambiguous, because it depends what you use this function for. For a rather common case of reading individual lines in a loop, it is necessary to clear the buffer.

  2. The docs warn about a DoS risk. I've added a hint how to mitigate unbounded memory growth.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 1, 2023

r? @joshtriplett

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 1, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 1, 2023

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

  • Stabilizing library features
  • Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
  • Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
  • Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
  • Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

scottmcm commented Jan 1, 2023

Thanks!

r? @scottmcm
@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 1, 2023

📌 Commit 3a6ceeb has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@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 Jan 1, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 2, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 3a6ceeb with merge ee11bfd...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 2, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing ee11bfd to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jan 2, 2023
@bors bors merged commit ee11bfd into rust-lang:master Jan 2, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.68.0 milestone Jan 2, 2023
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (ee11bfd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.4% [0.4%, 0.4%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.4% [0.4%, 0.4%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.5% [1.5%, 1.5%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.9% [2.9%, 2.9%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.5% [1.5%, 1.5%] 1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

@kornelski kornelski deleted the read_line-doc branch November 6, 2023 00:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants