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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[libc 1.0] Add htonl, htons, ntohl, ntohs #3669

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[libc 1.0] Add htonl, htons, ntohl, ntohs #3669

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

safinaskar
Copy link

Not a breaking change

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 28, 2024

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @JohnTitor (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@safinaskar safinaskar marked this pull request as draft April 28, 2024 21:06
@safinaskar safinaskar marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2024 20:52
JohnTitor
JohnTitor reviewed May 1, 2024
View reviewed changes
src/unix/mod.rs
Comment on lines +1371 to +1372
// It seems htonl, etc are macros on macOS. So we have to reimplement them. So let's
// reimplement them for all UNIX platforms
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could split the declaration for that target.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could split the declaration for that target

@JohnTitor , yes, we can. But I think this is slightly more error-prone than my approach. I. e. if we split the declaration, then it is possible we introduce bug for some platform, but not for others

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@JohnTitor JohnTitor JohnTitor left review comments

Assignees

@JohnTitor JohnTitor

Labels
S-waiting-on-review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@safinaskar @rustbot @JohnTitor