Fix std::mem::drop rustdoc misleading statement #149244
Open
+9
−11
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
Collaborator
|
r? @ibraheemdev rustbot has assigned @ibraheemdev. Use |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
spastorino
force-pushed
the
fix-mem-drop-rustdoc
branch
from
b0c39a1 to
13fc0d8
Compare
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is a bit misleading, we were discussing this with our Rust team and some people could think that the compiler does some special magic for this specific function and that's not true or well the compiler does something special but for every function.
The reality according to my understanding is that this is a normal function that takes ownership of the given value and as with every other function mir building injects Drop Terminators , drop elaboration refines this and then we would insert the corresponding drop glue, then potentially calling Drop::drop.
Not sure if it would be best to remove the sentence as this PR does or explaining something along the lines of the previous text.