Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment by LegionMammal978 · Pull Request #120823

Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment by LegionMammal978 · Pull Request #120823 · rust-lang/rust

The documentation for atomic integers says that they have the "same
in-memory representation" as their underlying integers. This might be
misconstrued as implying that they have the same layout. Therefore,
clarify that atomic integers' alignment is equal to their size.

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

T-libs

Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

labels

Feb 9, 2024

bors added S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

and removed S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

labels

Feb 10, 2024

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request

Feb 10, 2024

…gn, r=RalfJung

Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment

The documentation for atomic integers says that they have the "same in-memory representation" as their underlying integers. This might be misconstrued as implying that they have the same layout. Therefore, clarify that atomic integers' alignment is equal to their size.

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request

Feb 10, 2024

…gn, r=RalfJung

Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment

The documentation for atomic integers says that they have the "same in-memory representation" as their underlying integers. This might be misconstrued as implying that they have the same layout. Therefore, clarify that atomic integers' alignment is equal to their size.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Feb 10, 2024

…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#117614 (static mut: allow mutable reference to arbitrary types, not just slices and arrays)
 - rust-lang#120588 (wasm: Store rlib metadata in wasm object files)
 - rust-lang#120719 (Remove support for `associated_type_bound` nested in `dyn` types)
 - rust-lang#120823 (Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment)
 - rust-lang#120859 (Loosen an assertion to account for stashed errors.)
 - rust-lang#120865 (Turn the "no saved object file in work product" ICE into a translatable fatal error)
 - rust-lang#120866 (Remove unnecessary `#![feature(min_specialization)]`)
 - rust-lang#120870 (Allow restricted trait impls under `#[allow_internal_unstable(min_specialization)]`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Feb 10, 2024

…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#117614 (static mut: allow mutable reference to arbitrary types, not just slices and arrays)
 - rust-lang#120719 (Remove support for `associated_type_bound` nested in `dyn` types)
 - rust-lang#120764 (Add documentation on `str::starts_with`)
 - rust-lang#120823 (Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment)
 - rust-lang#120859 (Loosen an assertion to account for stashed errors.)
 - rust-lang#120865 (Turn the "no saved object file in work product" ICE into a translatable fatal error)
 - rust-lang#120866 (Remove unnecessary `#![feature(min_specialization)]`)
 - rust-lang#120870 (Allow restricted trait impls under `#[allow_internal_unstable(min_specialization)]`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Feb 10, 2024

Rollup merge of rust-lang#120823 - LegionMammal978:clarify-atomic-align, r=RalfJung

Clarify that atomic and regular integers can differ in alignment

The documentation for atomic integers says that they have the "same in-memory representation" as their underlying integers. This might be misconstrued as implying that they have the same layout. Therefore, clarify that atomic integers' alignment is equal to their size.