Replace util_libc and sanitizer modules with impl_utils macro
#763
Conversation
newpavlov
changed the title
util_libc with impl_utils macroutil_libc and sanitizer with impl_utils macro
newpavlov
changed the title
util_libc and sanitizer with impl_utils macroutil_libc and sanitizer modules with impl_utils macro
| (get_errno) => { | ||
| cfg_if! { | ||
| if #[cfg(any(target_os = "netbsd", target_os = "openbsd", target_os = "android", target_os = "cygwin"))] { | ||
| use libc::__errno as errno_location; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Technically, we could move these imports into backends, but I think it will result in a more convoluted and harder to review code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
personal opinion: that would be better
| (get_errno) => { | ||
| cfg_if! { | ||
| if #[cfg(any(target_os = "netbsd", target_os = "openbsd", target_os = "android", target_os = "cygwin"))] { | ||
| use libc::__errno as errno_location; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
personal opinion: that would be better
|
What is the purpose of this change? |
|
It's my take on #760 which removes reliance on the uncommon Though one change which I think we should certainly do is to move the |
It is an implementation detail of some backends so I think it is fine there. IMO not worth the churn. But, IDC much. |
It is an ugly thing but I don't think it's worth introducing additional complexity. In other projects, I tend to use I don't think the macro is an improvement. |
That pattern wouldn't work here because the module compiles only on certain targets. This is why I think #763 (comment) is an improvement; it would make that more clear. |
It does work just fine; just the |
Based on #760