Clarify that UB will occur, not can/may in GlobalAlloc docs #147711
Merged
+4
−4
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
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2025
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #146841 (Stabilise `rotate_left` and `rotate_right` in `[_]` as `const fn` items.) - #146949 (Add vsx register support for ppc inline asm, and implement preserves_flag option) - #147539 (resolve: Use primitives for conditional mutability more consistently) - #147685 (remove span calls from deprecated attribute checking) - #147699 (Clairify docs for `AttributeKind::DocComment`) - #147706 (Add myself to review rotation) - #147711 (Clarify that UB will occur, not can/may in GlobalAlloc docs) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
We do have quite a few hits for "behavior is undefined" so seems fine to me. |
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2025
Rollup merge of #147711 - saethlin:GlobalAlloc-safety, r=Amanieu Clarify that UB will occur, not can/may in GlobalAlloc docs These doc comments start out very clear by saying the caller "must" or "has to" ensure something, but the end with some form of "otherwise undefined behavior may result" which sounds like it is implementation-defined and seems to conflict with the way the paragraph starts. Consistent phrasing makes it clearer that when the safety precondition is violated, UB is encountered. Some of the phrasing here is a bit awkward to me, I don't think we usually say "the behavior is undefined" `@RalfJung` right? But in either case I'm trying to be surgical in my edit here. r? Amanieu
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
These doc comments start out very clear by saying the caller "must" or "has to" ensure something, but the end with some form of "otherwise undefined behavior may result" which sounds like it is implementation-defined and seems to conflict with the way the paragraph starts. Consistent phrasing makes it clearer that when the safety precondition is violated, UB is encountered.
Some of the phrasing here is a bit awkward to me, I don't think we usually say "the behavior is undefined" @RalfJung right? But in either case I'm trying to be surgical in my edit here.
r? Amanieu