Clarified docs on non-atomic oprations on owned/mut refs to atomics #121082
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
cuviper
reviewed
Feb 14, 2024
peterjoel
force-pushed
the
atomic-docs
branch
from
dc6b134 to
9cccf20
Compare
|
Thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 15, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#111106 (Add known issue of let binding to format_args doc) - rust-lang#118749 (Make contributing to windows bindings easier) - rust-lang#120982 (Add APIs for fetching foreign items ) - rust-lang#121022 (rustdoc: cross-crate re-exports: correctly render late-bound params in source order even if early-bound params are present) - rust-lang#121082 (Clarified docs on non-atomic oprations on owned/mut refs to atomics) - rust-lang#121084 (Make sure `tcx.create_def` also depends on the forever red node, instead of just `tcx.at(span).create_def`) - rust-lang#121098 (Remove unnecessary else block from `thread_local!` expanded code) - rust-lang#121105 (Do not report overflow errors on ConstArgHasType goals) - rust-lang#121116 (Reinstate some delayed bugs.) - rust-lang#121122 (Enforce coroutine-closure layouts are identical) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 15, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#121082 - peterjoel:atomic-docs, r=cuviper Clarified docs on non-atomic oprations on owned/mut refs to atomics I originally misinterpreted the documentation to mean that the compiler can/will automatically optimise away atomic operations whenever the data is owned or mutably referenced. On re-reading I think it is not technically incorrect, but specifically mentioning _how_ the atomic operations can be avoided also prevents this misunderstanding.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I originally misinterpreted the documentation to mean that the compiler can/will automatically optimise away atomic operations whenever the data is owned or mutably referenced.
On re-reading I think it is not technically incorrect, but specifically mentioning how the atomic operations can be avoided also prevents this misunderstanding.