Skip to content

Update bitflags to 0.9 #620

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 20, 2017
Merged

Update bitflags to 0.9 #620

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 20, 2017

Conversation

equal-l2
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@Susurrus
Copy link
Contributor

Tests failed. Also, @asomers any reason why the freeBSD tests aren't showing up here?

@Susurrus
Copy link
Contributor

Looking over these changes, it actually appears to me that at least some of these bitflags macros should actually be changed to use the internal libc_bitflags macro. Since we're already touching on these values, it'd be great to do that as part of this PR. @equal-l2 could you do that?

@equal-l2
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Susurrus I'd love to. Which bitflags do you actually mean?

@Susurrus
Copy link
Contributor

Any of the bitflags that reference exclusively libc types, which should be most of them. OFlag should be assuming that all of the values exist in the libc crate, which you'll need to check (they may need to be conditionally-included with #[config()] attributes.

@equal-l2
Copy link
Contributor Author

Some of OFlag is not exist in libc yet.
I'll make a PR for them on libc.

@equal-l2
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'd like to separate the change of bitflags to libc_bitflags to another PR, since there are more constants we can hand over to libc.

Can't I do that?

@Susurrus
Copy link
Contributor

@equal-l2 That's fine. Thanks for your work on this!

bors r+

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2017
@bors
Merge #620
c61ecba 
620: Update bitflags to 0.9 r=Susurrus
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jun 19, 2017

Build failed

@equal-l2
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think this is not my fault...

@Susurrus
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, looks like an intermittent failure as I haven't seen that before. Let's run it again.

bors r+

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2017
@bors
Merge #620
9f6e746 
620: Update bitflags to 0.9 r=Susurrus
@notriddle
Copy link
Contributor

notriddle commented Jun 19, 2017 •
edited
Loading

BuildBot isn't running any of the bors jobs. I notice, looking at the page, that there's a scheduler for "nix-rust/nix master". Is it missing one for "nix-rust/nix staging"?

@notriddle
Copy link
Contributor

notriddle commented Jun 19, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Okay, according to the console view, bors got the message about the staging pushes, but no build was scheduled as a result of it. Personally, I'd turn off buildbot entirely for the master branch but always build staging (not sure how this relates to building pull requests, though).

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jun 19, 2017

Timed out

@asomers
Copy link
Member

asomers commented Jun 20, 2017

Let's try again

bors r+

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2017
@bors
Merge #620
ebfd5c0 
620: Update bitflags to 0.9 r=asomers
@asomers
Copy link
Member

asomers commented Jun 20, 2017

That did the trick. Turns out there's a difference between "staging" and "refs/head/staging".

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jun 20, 2017

Build succeeded

@bors bors bot merged commit f049edd into nix-rust:master Jun 20, 2017
@equal-l2 equal-l2 deleted the update-bitflags branch June 20, 2017 01:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@equal-l2 @Susurrus @notriddle @asomers