gate HandlerFunc behind target_arch = "x86{_64}" #507
Conversation
This file contains 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
rustc is phasing out allowing the "x86-interrupt" ABI on non-x86 targets. Using "x86-interrupt" on a non-x86 target currently causes a warning, but this will become a hard error in a future version. Previously, if `abi_x86_interrupt` was enabled (it's enabled by default ), we used it in a pointer type for the declaration of the `HandlerFunc`- family of types and used a private empty tuple if `abi_x86_interrupt` wasn't enabled. This patch changes the cfg gate to only use the "x86-interrupt" abi on x86 targets. This is technically a breaking change, but I'd like to argue that we shouldn't treat it as such: The danger with treating this as a breaking change is that we can't release this fix as a patch update and so once rustc eventually treats this as an error, we might not yet have released the next breaking version leaving our users with not published fix. My hope is that there is no one using `HandlerFunc` on a non-x86 target. Even today, declaring a function (not just a function pointer) with the "x86-interrupt" abi on a non-x86 target causes an error, so it's unlikely that this will affect real code. It's technically possible to create a `HandlerFunc` on a non-x86 target by using transmute, but, again my hope is that no one is actually doing that. I'd also like to point out that the only use of a `HandlerFunc` on a non-x86 target would be to call set_handler_fn and any such calls could simply be replaced by calls to set_handler_addr.
Freax13
force-pushed
the
fix/gate-handlers
branch
from
e4e8100
to
0b5476e
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
rustc is phasing out allowing the "x86-interrupt" ABI on non-x86 targets. Using "x86-interrupt" on a non-x86 target currently causes a warning, but this will become a hard error in a future version.
Previously, if
abi_x86_interruptwas enabled (it's enabled by default), we used it in a pointer type for the declaration of theHandlerFunc- family of types and used a private empty tuple ifabi_x86_interruptwasn't enabled. This patch changes the cfg gate to only use the "x86-interrupt" abi on x86 targets. This is technically a breaking change, but I'd like to argue that we shouldn't treat it as such: The danger with treating this as a breaking change is that we can't release this fix as a patch update and so once rustc eventually treats this as an error, we might not yet have released the next breaking version leaving our users with not published fix.My hope is that there is no one using
HandlerFuncon a non-x86 target. Even today, declaring a function (not just a function pointer) with the "x86-interrupt" abi on a non-x86 target causes an error, so it's unlikely that this will affect real code. It's technically possible to create aHandlerFuncon a non-x86 target by using transmute, but, again my hope is that no one is actually doing that. I'd also like to point out that the only use of aHandlerFuncon a non-x86 target would be to callset_handler_fnand any such calls could simply be replaced by calls toset_handler_addr.