Skip to content

Clarify what no_std is good for. #23530

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.

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Fixes #23057

I'd be happy to modify it if we want to say something else.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @nikomatsakis

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

By default, `std` is linked to every Rust crate. In some contexts, such as
writing a kernel, this is undesirable. Rust's standard library can still be
used when writing things like shared libraries, even when being called into
like C.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Did you mean "called into, like C"?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Any of these would be more clear:

called into, as in C
called into, like in C

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure thing

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

r? @alexcrichton

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

I think there's a typo in the bug number? Did you mean #20537?

I'm also not sure that this is sufficient to close that issue, I think that we ourselves haven't quite figured out the no_std story quite just yet (hence it being an unstable feature). Also, quite a bit of time has passed since its opening, and the landscape has changed!

I think that the bug isn't really a documentation bug but rather one where we need to discuss how to stabilize the feature, "fixing" the bug in the process. Basically I think that the bug should be interpreted as "it would be nice for #[no_std] to be stable and all that entails".

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

It is a typo, whoops :(

I think that the bug isn't really a documentation bug but rather one where we need to discuss how to stabilize the feature

Sounds fine to me. I'll move the original issue over to RFCs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ICE when save a closure to static mut produced from closure call
5 participants