core: fix cargo build for targets with "max-atomic-width": 0
#35176
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
Yes that's the right cfg to use. Any target that supports any form of atomics is guaranteed to support byte atomics. |
|
Alternatively, to reduce the noise of #[cfg_attr(not(target_has_atomic = "8"), allow(dead_code))] |
This crate was failing to compile due to dead_code/unused_imports warnings. This commits disables these two lints for these targets.
|
@alexcrichton changed to use two lints. |
core: fix `cargo build` for targets with "max-atomic-width": 0 This crate was failing to compile due to dead_code/unused_imports warnings. This commits disables these two lints for these targets. --- r? @alexcrichton cc @Amanieu is `cfg(target_has_atomic = "8")` the right `cfg` to use? I think that all targets that support some form of atomics will at a minimum support byte level atomics. FWIW, the only thing that's left in `sync::atomic` for these targets is `Ordering` and the `fence` function.
This crate was failing to compile due to dead_code/unused_imports
warnings. This commits disables these two lints for these targets.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @Amanieu is
cfg(target_has_atomic = "8")the rightcfgto use? I think that all targets that support some form of atomics will at a minimum support byte level atomics.FWIW, the only thing that's left in
sync::atomicfor these targets isOrderingand thefencefunction.