On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-5, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, at 7:18 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > What's the current status of tooling for editing vendored crates for
> > local testing and try pushes?
> >
> > It looks like our toml setup is too complex for cargo edi
Hello! I do agree it is indeed bad to spawn a new thread for all calls into
Rust :). You likely don't want a custom panic handler [1], however, as those
are actually more appropriately called "hooks" (just renamed [2]).
Instead, the `std::panic::recover` function [3] is what you'll want for the
Ah, no, if using `panic::recover` then it wouldn't translate to a crash (I
believe) as it's just normal execution. If you want a panic in Rust to
translate to an abort of the entire process, however, then you've got two
options.
On one hand you could use the custom panic hook support I mentioned
> My code doesn't currently use panic::recover. What
> happens when somebody doesn't use it and an exception hits the FFI
> boundary? Undefined behavior?
Technically, yes, undefined behavior. It's specifically undefined to unwind
past an FFI boundary.
Practically on Linux this will abort the pro
> Ok, so that should be released in about 2 months, right?
I believe so, yes!
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> I think for release builds, we should have the following:
Thanks for this information! For reference, I've responded on the RFC to the
technical bits here.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1513#issuecomment-200626686
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> > so unwinding
6 matches
Mail list logo
